Re: Dedicated Route Reflectors

[Truman Boyes <truman () suspicious org>]

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!
>
> http://www.flickr.com/gift/