Hi, I have seen networks use the control plane of large P routers to reflect their inet-vpn routes. Keep in mind that when reflecting inet- vpn routes, the next-hops need to be "reachable". So quite possibly you will need some policy to resolve the MPLS next-hops. Internet / VPN / and now IPv6 peers have different growth rates, so you may benefit in having different "types of route reflectors" for different address families. In a small PE deployment (say, 5-50) PE nodes, you can deploy the route reflection on your P routers. Create some redundancy, and have your PE nodes peer with 2-3 of them. It keeps the configuration much smaller that having to define all the neighbours in a full mesh. When you have lots of routes and PEs, you can start to have dedicated RRs for different address families. Truman On 12/09/2009, at 1:30 AM, Serge Vautour wrote:
Hello,
We're in the process of planning for an MPLS network that will use BGP for signaling between PEs. This will be a BGP free Core (i.e. no BGP on the P routers). What are folks doing for iBGP in this case? Full Mesh? Full Mesh the Main POP PEs and Route Reflect to some outlining PEs? Are folks using dedicated/centralized Route Reflectors (redundant of course)? What about using some of the P routers as the Centralized Route Reflectors? The boxes aren't doing much from a Control Plane perspective, why not use them as Route Reflectors.
Any comments would be appreciated.
Thanks, Serge
__________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!