IBGP between route reflector server

[mythology]

Hi Guys,

Is it necessary to have iBGP session between 2 RR server (in the same cluster). What are the pro's and con's?

Regards,

[lgijssel]

Yes, you need it.

Pro's and cons do not apply, its a requirement.

regards,

Leo

[mythology]

Can i know the reason for having iBGP peering between RR servers?. If i think about it, RR will not have any routes to originate, its just there to reflect routes from clients and all my clients peer with both the RR server. Since all my clients peer with both RR, there is no point in one RR receiving routes from other RR (sent by clients).

Online documentation says its required but dosent mention on why it is required.

[lgijssel · Accepted solution]

Perhaps that's because it is so obvious.

The whole RR concept was developed to alleviate the primary requirement of all iBGP peers.

This requirement being... yes(!) a full mesh of BGP peers defined between them.

By using an RR, only the RR servers must still meet this requirement. Thats basically all there is to it.

Check this: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a00800c95bb.shtml

regards,

Leo

[mythology]

Yes Leo, you are right. Ideally RR should have full-mesh peering with non-client iBGP peers.

In my network we have 2 RR and all the POP peer with both the RR. As of now i am not facing any issue. If anyone has faced any issue with this setup, let me know.