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
network.
--Brent
--- 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:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
Brent Foster
jbrentfoster@xxxxxxxxx
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
