Hi there
The RR vs Full Mesh depends on what how you would like to balance your exit/peering points across the network. If you have, say, 3 border routers in 3 different regions, you should need at least 3 RRs if you want each region having it's own preference for the external routes. I would advise Full Mesh if the equipments can manage the number of iBGP sessions and update-groups are quite fast this days, also the management overhead is not much of an issue as "advertised". About keeping the P routers as RR, I think that is will load the FIB with useless external routes, and keeping them in a VRF is not quite OK, depending on the used platform. Pavel. 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/ > >
