From: shiran guez (shiranp3@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Oct 10 2007 - 07:52:32 ART
slevin
I was wrong as R1 will receive the routes from the RR's Server as he is a
non client and clients can send to non-clients with the RR server in the
middle, Just tested it on Dynamips.
Looks like I was mixed up with my own explanation :-) as I said the rule of
reflector correctly but then I contradicted it with my interpretation. this
is why there is nothing that can explain better then doing it on real.
On 10/10/07, slevin kremera <slevin.kremera@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi shiran
>
> i have another doubt..since r2 and r5 are peering with r3 and r4 do i need
> to make them as rr-clients of R3 and r4 ...its like can RR's themselves
> become rr-clients and vice versa
>
> On 10/10/07, shiran guez <shiranp3@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry I didn't notice that you said peering with lo0 then, as I was
> > mentioning before yes it will receive the update in that case.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/10/07, slevin kremera < slevin.kremera@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > R1
> > > / \
> > > / \
> > > r3-----r4
> > > / \ / \
> > > / \ / \
> > > r2 r5 r2
> > >
> > >
> > > here all the routers are in as100. r1-r3-r4 are full meshed and
> > > peering wit
> > > lo0. r2 and r5 are peering with r3 and r4..I am planning to make r2
> > > and r5
> > > as rr-clients for r3 and r4
> > >
> > > .The question here is if the link between r1 and r4 is broken and r1
> > > recieves an ebgp updates from outside..will it fwd it to R4??
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________________________________
> > >
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Shiran Guez
> > MCSE CCNP NCE1
> > http://cciep3.blogspot.com
> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/cciep3
> >
>
>
-- Shiran Guez MCSE CCNP NCE1 http://cciep3.blogspot.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/cciep3
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 16 2007 - 13:11:13 ART