On Sat, 2005-01-08 at 00:20, Robert Crowe wrote:
Yes, an iBGP session is possible between A & C. Route Reflectors main purpose was to reduce the iBGP full mesh requirement, thus providing for BGP scalability. If you only have 3 BGP speakers then there is no need, unless you are expecting BGP speaker growth. I would address the lack of redundancy for your BGP sessions.
Correct, route reflector's main advantage is scalability and if you're thinking to evolve into a larger network with dedicated access and core routers, route reflectors are a far better option than full mesh, though perhaps not from the start. Redundancy is a good point, since in the route reflector diagram you have a single route reflector with single sessions to your edges. If iBGP link A-B goes down, the rest of your network looses 1 transit ISP and customer 1 is cut off from the rest of your network, basically leaving him with a default route out to ISP A and the rest of your network having to rely on transit to reach your own customer. Also depends on the actual physical paths to the customer ofcourse (redundant?), but seems a bit risky, while customer 2 is looking a lot safer. Cheers, Erik -- --- Erik Haagsman Network Architect We Dare BV tel: +31.10.7507008 fax: +31.10.7507005 http://www.we-dare.nl