Adding rr_mesh option to BGP Configuration Module #2808
Replies: 4 comments 10 replies
-
It is. That's how route reflectors were designed to be used (see https://blog.ipspace.net/2022/02/bgp-rr-myths/ for details); the only scenario where you do not need an IBGP session between them is when you run them on spine nodes in a leaf-and-spine fabric.
I would prefer an opinionated plugin (for example, bgp.dc) that would remove IBGP sessions between route reflectors and set extended BGP community propagation on all sessions. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I was looking back through past issues to see if I raised something similar before - it felt familiar Happy to see I’m not the only opinionated one… |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@ssasso @jbemmel -- assuming we don't want to have yet-another plugin for yet-another nerd knob, would you prefer having this one in:
In both cases, I'd go for bgp.rr_mesh boolean node attribute (giving the users all the rope they need to irreparably entangle themselves into RR knots 🤪). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Implemented in #2847 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I noticed something strange: when we have more than one route reflector in the topology, they try to establish sessions with each other—even without a direct link between them. I don't think that's the intended behavior.
I propose adding an rr_mesh option to control this process. To avoid breaking existing setups, the default value should be set to true.
I’ve already added this to the code in my lab, and it seems to work without causing any issues.
and also add to bgp.yml
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions