.jpg "Opportunities, Appliacation, Openings"){kind=small}
.jpg "Hand Job, Blow Job, Job Search, Monster Job"){kind=small}
.jpg "pusat resume, daftar kerja, cari kerja"){kind=small}
.jpg "Project Manager, SOftware Engineer, SAP Consultant"){kind=small}
RR-cluster
If every RR peers to all other iBGP neighbors and regards them as clients, there is no need to peer them together for the purpose of redundancy. What you should do, is assign them to the same cluster ID to reduce problems with redundant routes - so both of them recognize that there is another RR in the same “cluster”.
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Roger RPF wrote:
> Hi group, > > Assume that we have an iBGP cloud with a couple of clients and two > route-reflectors, connecting to each client. Is it correct that in order to > get full redundancy for all “cases” the RR’s should also peer together. > > I’m asking because I’m currently working on a LAB where the two RR’s do not > peer together and to my understanding (and after reading in “Odom”), I was > thinking that the RR’s in such a scenario should always have a peering > session together… > > regards > > Roger > > > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net > > _______________________________________________________________________ > Subscription information may be found at: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html > > > > > > > >
— Pavel Bykov ————————————————- Stop the braindumps! http://www.stopbraindumps.com/
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
