Hello all, Thank you for insightful answers. I was thinking mostly about the second scenario Chuck mentioned - where some traffic naturally flows through the routers that are the RRs because of MPLS LSP. Setting next-hop-self on all reflected routes would be misconfiguration IMHO. I am also aware of products like vMX or CSR1000v/XRv and the example given by Saku makes me more interested in licensing/pricing options. Regards, Marcin W dniu 2014-12-31 o 18:05, Chuck Anderson pisze:
Hi everyone,
I'm reading Randy's Zhang BGP Design and Implementation and I found following guidelines about designing RR-based MPLS VPN architecture: - Partition RRs - Move RRs out of the forwarding path - Use a high-end processor with maximum memory - Use peer groups - Tune RR routers for improved performance.
Since the book is a bit outdated (2004) I'm curious if these rules still apply to modern SP networks. What would be the reasoning behind keeping RRs out of the forwarding path? Is it only a matter of performance and stability? When they say "move RRs out of the forwarding path", they could mean "don't force all traffic through the RRs". These are two different
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 01:08:15PM +0100, Marcin Kurek wrote: things. Naive configurations could end up causing all VPN traffic to go through the RRs (e.g. setting next-hop-self on all reflected routes) whereas more correct configurations don't do that--but there may be some traffic that natrually flows through the same routers that are the RRs, via an MPLS LSP for example. That latter is fine in many cases, the former is not. E.g. I would argue that a P-router can be an RR if desired.