iBGP - Route Reflectors Vs. Confederations posted 08/06/2004
- Subject: iBGP - Route Reflectors Vs. Confederations
- From: "nikolai" <be@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 16:57:32 -0700
Any thoughts regarding choosing one versus the other in order to collapse
several ASs into a single one?
The single AS consists of about 100 BGP speakers, no possibility for full
mesh, of course. IGP is OSPF, and the AS is used as a Transitive area.
I personally do not like multi-tier RRs and lots of Clusters. In addition, I
have the feeling that implementing routing policy would be easier with
Confederations, where we can see clearly the sub-AS PATH of the routes.
Having multiple geographical areas looks to me as a good argument in favor
of Confederations, since they all would require some local authority, and
common IGP with the backbone routers is not desired. And the BGP design
looks much prettier...
Your input would be appreciated,