Re: Route Reflection

Appreciate that Dan...

That's exactly what I am trying to do.. But I am also trying to understand
if we would lose points when there is no peering between R2-R3... This
peering is unnecessary since R2 doesn't have any bgp routes and R3 also does
not have any bgp routes. They receive all other routes through R1...

From what I have read, they seem to be indicating that we need to have full
mesh when client-to-client reflection is disabled. But I would assume that
in this case where there are no bgp routes that need to be propagated to R3
from R2.. We do not need a ibgp peering. But would we lose points
for omitting this configuration?

Thanks,
Hoogen

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Danshtr <danshtr_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> that command can be used to reduce the amount of iBGP peering.
>
> Look at this example:
> http://dans-net.com/no_client_to_client.png
>
> The green lines represent iBGP sessions.
>
> R2 and R3 are RR clients of R1.
>
> A route coming from R4 will be sent to both R2 and R3, and vice-versa.
>
> Because R2 and R3 have iBGP session between them, they do not need the
> client to client RR service from R1.
>
> We have saved the need for R2 and R3 to peer to R4.
>
>
> HTH,
> Dan
> Troubleshooting blog: http://dans-net.com
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:48 PM, jack daniels <jckdaniels12_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Router(config-router)# *no bgp client-to-client reflection *
>>
>> Disables client-to-client route reflection
>>
>>
>> what is the use of this command , this says
>>
>> Disables client-to-client route reflection
>> ......so RR acts as normal IBGP router , so its same as not configuring
>> router as RR.
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Hoogen <hoogen82_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > +--R3
>> > R1--R2--|
>> > +--R4
>> >
>> > Let's say that all these routers are in a single AS.. R1 has some BGP
>> > routes
>> > and is peering with R2.. Now R2 is a route reflector..It is peering with
>> R3
>> > and R4. Now R4 and R3 do not have any BGP routes that need to be sent to
>> > the
>> > other BGP neighbors... Now if the route reflection between clients have
>> > been
>> > asked to be disabled, do we now have to have peering between R4 and R3?
>> I
>> > would assume that since there is no routes that exist on either R3 or R4
>> > that needs to get to each other, there is no need of full mesh peering.
>> But
>> > the general rule is if the reflection is suppressed I need to have a
>> full
>> > mesh..
>> >
>> > Any thoughts on this?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2/ip/configuration/guide/1cfbgp.html#wp1001965
>> >
>> > -Hoogen
>> >
>> >
>> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>> > Subscription information may be found at:
>> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Wed Dec 02 2009 - 14:39:01 ART