Re: [Lsvr] Comments on LSVR with RR peering

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

> 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