Re: [Lsvr] Comments on LSVR with RR peering

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

On 05/12/2018 22:23, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Perhaps the authors can clarify what they meant by "BGP speakers peer
>> solely with one or more ... controllers".
>>
>> On 12/5/2018 3:58 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> i think i see the disconnect
>>>
>>>>>> RR--1--A--1--B--1--C--1--D--1--E
>>>>>>                  |                 |
>>>>>>                  |-----5-----F--1--|
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The letters represent routers (RR being the Route Reflector), and the
>>>>>> numbers are link metrics.
>>> B, C, D, E, and F may not be clients of RR.  2.2 says you can use
>>> loopbacks.  this does not imply that you can multi-hop peer a la ibgp.
>>> hence, 2.3 does not allow multi-hop.
>>>
>>> or i am still confused.
>>>
>>> randy
> perhaps they thought "directly" in the section title of 2.2 would give
> us a clue
>
>       2.2. BGP Peering Between Directly Connected Network Nodes
>
> followed by
>    
>      2.3.  BGP Peering in Route-Reflector or Controller Topology
>
>         In this model, BGP speakers peer solely with one or more Route
>         Reflectors [RFC4456] or controllers.  As in the previous model,
>         direct connection discovery and liveliness detection for those
>         connections are done outside the BGP protocol.
>
> so would you have them clarify 2.3 with something such as
>
>      as with non-spf bgp route reflection, clients are directly connected
>      to the reflector(s)
>
> randy

Presumably in needs to be "directly connected via an alternate physical 
network."

- Stewart



>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsvr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr