Dedicated Route Reflectors

Pavel Stan pavel-subscriptions at
Fri Sep 11 23:17:20 UTC 2009

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.


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! 

More information about the NANOG mailing list