Cisco and Juniper both have working ORR implementations, although config on the
Juniper one is a bit clunky right now. One interesting thing is they also
allow feeding topology data via BGP-LS, so BGP is the only protocol you need to
run to/from it.
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> on behalf of Brandon Ewing
<nicot...@warningg.com>
Date: Friday, January 13, 2017 at 17:39
To: Justin Krejci <jkre...@usinternet.com>
Cc: <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: BGP Route Reflector - Route Server, Router, etc
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 08:32:44PM +0000, Justin Krejci wrote:
> What are the pros and cons of one design over another? On list or private
off list replies would be great; I'd welcome real world experiences (especially
any big gotchas or caveats people learned the hard way) as well as just links
to previous discussions, PDFs, slideshows, etc. Heck even a good book
suggestion that covers this topic would be appreciated.
>
One important thing to remember when migrating from full mesh to a RR design
is that you are reducing information available to the routers in the ASN.
When you had a full mesh, each router could select the best path from all
available paths, according to its position in the IGP. In a RR environment,
by default, routers only have available to them the best routes from the
RR's position in the IGP, which can lead to suboptimal exits being selected.
Work is being done to allow RRs to compute metrics from the client's
position in the IGP: See
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-13
for more information
--
Brandon Ewing (nicot...@warningg.com)
