Re: bgp client-to-client reflection posted 03/27/2006
- Subject: Re: bgp client-to-client reflection
- From: Brent Foster <jbrentfoster@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:43:49 -0800 (PST)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=E6RJtf8JGHu/JyodaWF2PtIzEYqsbak2FHcHnF/ZokETMUSaID1FjJYzdgck/P2RGRhOMTH09bX9b38689Ah/3N2RZTg84I5k6DFsu5I10kirdDTb5dvxgHYDre2wj4uoweizrbWryfehEinloGHI0v5FC0s1mTkISQ+XYg5Z2c= ;
- In-reply-to: <44280CA2.email@example.com>
I believe the intent here is that the RR would reflect
routes from routers that are not RR-clients to the
RR-clients. All other routes from the RR-clients
would not be reflected.
In this scenario the RR-clients would not have to peer
with the RR's non-RR-client peers. But, they would
have full mesh peering with each other for redundancy.
I guess I could see some cases where this might make
sense depending on the physical topology of the
--- Nick Griffin <ngriffin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Call me ignorant, but I'm having trouble thinking of
> a situation in
> which this command would be of value. Obviously
> there's a scenario when
> this is needed or it wouldn't be an option. I must
> be misunderstanding,
> because if I have RR clients that are fully meshed,
> then whats the point
> of making them RR clients?
> Thoughts apprecitated
> Subscription information may be found at:
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around