Networks Training

  • About
  • RECOMMENDED SOFTWARE
    • ManageEngine OpManager
    • ManageEngine Netflow Analyzer
    • ManageEngine Applications Manager
    • ManageEngine OpUtils
    • Site24x7
  • My Books
  • TRAINING
  • HOME
  • Cisco Networking
    • Cisco General
    • Cisco IOS
    • Cisco VPN
    • Cisco Wireless
  • Cisco ASA
    • Cisco ASA General
    • Cisco ASA Firewall Configuration
  • Certifications Training
    • CCNA Training
    • Cisco Certifications
    • I.T Training
  • General
    • General Networking
    • IP Telephony
    • Network Security
    • Product Reviews
    • Software
  • Cisco Routers
  • Cisco Switches
You are here: Home / Cisco General / Comparison of BGP Confederations vs Route Reflectors

Comparison of BGP Confederations vs Route Reflectors

Written By Lazaros Agapidis

When deploying excessively large Autonomous Systems or ASes in BGP, it is necessary to overcome the limitation introduced by the iBGP full mesh peerings required within the AS in question.  There are two primary ways this can be achieved, using either BGP’s Route Reflector feature or BGP confederations.

diagram schematic

In this article, we’ll examine these two options and share information about the advantages and disadvantages of each, ultimately giving you a guide as to which to use and in what circumstances.

Table of Contents

  • BGP Design
    • iBGP Design
    • The Solution to the iBGP Full Mesh Problem
  • BGP Route Reflectors
    • Benefits of RRs
    • Drawbacks of RRs
  • BGP Confederations
    • Benefits of Confederations
    • Drawbacks of Confederations
  • When to Use BGP Confederations or Route Reflectors
  • Comparison Table
  • Conclusion

BGP Design

Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is the routing protocol that is used on the Internet at large.  One of BGP’s fundamental design principles is that it separates the network into Autonomous Systems or ASes.  Each AS is an independent entity administrated by a particular organization such as an ISP or a large enterprise.

iBGP Design

Within an AS, all BGP routers create internal BGP peerings or iBGP peerings with each other.  An iBGP peering is defined as a BGP peering between two BGP routers in the same AS. 

One of the requirements of iBGP is that for all BGP routers, there must be a full mesh iBGP peering between all iBGP routers within an AS. 

For larger ASes, this can become both an administrative as well as a computational challenge as the number of peerings grows exponentially as the number of iBGP routers increase.  The fact that peerings must be configured manually introduces even more overhead for all but the smallest ASes.

The Solution to the iBGP Full Mesh Problem

BGP itself provides a solution to this challenge by introducing two features:

  • BGP route reflectors (RRs)
  • BGP confederations

We’ve talked about these features in detail in the past (see the links above).

In this article, we’ll examine and compare these two features of BGP specifically in the context of resolving the full mesh iBGP limitation. 

We’ll compare them, describe their benefits and drawbacks, and determine under what circumstances each one should be used.

BGP Route Reflectors

An RR is an iBGP router that forwards updates from one iBGP peer to other iBGP peers. 

MORE READING:  Discussion and Explanation of OSPF Graceful Restart and Shutdown

Benefits of RRs

RRs are definitely easier to deploy and deliver a quick solution without the need to redesign the whole network or modify any existing AS numbers. 

It is highly scalable because you can create multiple RR clusters within an AS.  A cluster is the sum of an RR router and its clients. 

This allows for additional levels of hierarchy to be introduced within the AS further extending scalability.  RRs can also deliver robustness as you can create multiple backup RRs to take over in the event that an RR fails.

BGP RR diagram

Drawbacks of RRs

The primary drawback of the use of RRs is the fact that RRs can alter the path information during reflection. 

This could potentially lead to suboptimal routing.  In addition, the deployment of RRs even with the use of clusters is typically limited to ASes on the order of several hundred iBGP routers.

BGP Confederations

BGP confederations involve breaking a single AS into multiple smaller, internal ASes. These smaller ASes, also referred to as sub-ASes, communicate using iBGP, while the original AS, which is called a confederation, uses eBGP to communicate with the outside world.

Benefits of Confederations

Confederations deliver several benefits to larger ASes including a very high level of control over route propagation and policies between the sub-ASes since each one can have its own distinct routing policies. 

They can also reduce the impact of failures as they can be contained within each individual sub-AS.  Some additional benefits include:

  • Smaller more efficient routing tables
  • Preservation of the external AS number so eBGP peering configurations remain unchanged
  • More efficient use of AS numbers since sub-AS numbers are only locally significant

BGP confederations diagram 1

Drawbacks of Confederations

Confederations can introduce higher administrative and design complexities since you are managing multiple AS numbers internally. 

They can also be more challenging when migrating from a classic iBGP setup to a confederation as it requires the renumbering and reconfiguration of internal BGP speakers with the addition of new AS numbers for sub-ASes and their peerings.

When to Use BGP Confederations or Route Reflectors

RRs should be used:

  • In situations where you want a quick solution with minimal architectural changes.
  • In networks where the architecture allows for a straightforward implementation of RRs without inducing suboptimal paths.
  • If the number of iBGP routers in the AS is on the order of hundreds of routers.
MORE READING:  What will happen to Internet Traffic by 2020 - Some Statistics

Confederations should be used:

  • In networks where there’s a need for fine-grained control over routing policies internally.
  • If the network is so large or diverse that breaking it down into smaller domains (sub-ASes) makes logical sense and makes administration easier.
  • If the number of iBGP routers in the AS is on the order of hundreds or even thousands of routers.

Comparison Table

The following table compares these two solutions and highlights their pros and cons:

Characteristic Route Reflectors Confederations
Purpose Overcome scalability limitation requiring full mesh iBGP peerings within an AS Overcome scalability limitation requiring full mesh iBGP peerings within an AS
Method of achievement Designate RRs to forward updates from one iBGP peer to other iBGP peers. Break up a large AS into smaller sub-ASes. 
Complexity Medium (depending on design). High, especially during transition.
Configuration Changes Moderate: Introduce RR and client configurations. Extensive: Need to define sub-ASes and reconfigure peers. 
AS Number Usage No change in AS numbers. Internal use of new AS numbers (can use private AS range).
Scalability  Suitable for networks in the order of hundreds of iBGP routers.  Can scale to larger networks, even thousands of iBGP routers. 
Policy Granularity Medium: RRs control route reflection. High: Each sub-AS can have distinct policies. 
Failure Impact  Could be high if RRs are not redundant. Localized within a sub-AS.
Visibility Outside AS None: External peers see standard AS_PATH. None: External peers see standard AS_PATH. 
Routing Table Size Generally unchanged. Can be smaller within each sub-AS.
AS_PATH Length  Unchanged. Increased internally due to sub-ASes, unchanged externally.
Migration Challenge Low to Medium.  High: Transitioning to confederation is complex. 
Potential for Loops Minimal if correctly configured.  Present if not configured correctly. 
Operational Complexity Moderate: Must monitor RRs, and understand the behavior of reflection. High: Need to understand intra- and inter-sub-AS routing.

Conclusion

The choice between route reflectors and confederations depends on the specific needs and current setup of the particular AS network in question.

While RRs provide a more straightforward more immediately deployable method of reducing iBGP mesh requirements, confederations offer a more detailed and modular approach delivering higher granularity and flexibility at the cost of increased complexity.

When making a decision on which to use, consider the following:

  • The scale of your network.
  • Future scalability requirements.
  • Desired level of control over routing policies.
  • Willingness to undergo significant architectural changes.

One solution is not exclusively better than the other, and what works best will be highly dependent on individual circumstances and requirements.

Related Posts

  • What are BGP Confederations-Explanation and Discussion (With Cisco Example)
  • What is BGP Route Reflector – Explanation and Discussion (with Cisco Example)
  • What is a Wildcard Mask – All About Wildcard Masks Used in Networking
  • Cisco Branch Virtual Office Solutions – Network Design
  • Passing non-IP Traffic over IPSEC VPN using GRE over IPSEC

Filed Under: Cisco General, General Networking

Download Free Cisco Commands Cheat Sheets

Enter your Email below to Download our Free Cisco Commands Cheat Sheets for Routers, Switches and ASA Firewalls.

We use Elastic Email as our marketing automation service. By submitting this form, you agree that the information you provide will be transferred to Elastic Email for processing in accordance with their Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Also, you allow me to send you informational and marketing emails from time-to-time.

About Lazaros Agapidis

Lazaros Agapidis is a Telecommunications and Networking Specialist with over twenty years of experience.
He works primarily with IP networks, VoIP, Wi-Fi, and 5G, has extensive experience in training professionals for Cisco certifications, and his expertise extends into telecommunications services and infrastructure from both an enterprise and a service provider perspective.
In addition to his numerous vendor certifications, Lazaros has a solid online presence as an expert in his field, having worked in both public and private sectors within North America and in Europe.
He has enjoyed sharing his practical experiences in writing as well as through engaging online training.
LinkedIn: Lazaros Agapides

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Search this site

About Networks Training

We Provide Technical Tutorials and Configuration Examples about TCP/IP Networks with focus on Cisco Products and Technologies. This blog entails my own thoughts and ideas, which may not represent the thoughts of Cisco Systems Inc. This blog is NOT affiliated or endorsed by Cisco Systems Inc. All product names, logos and artwork are copyrights/trademarks of their respective owners.

Amazon Disclosure

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.

Search

BLOGROLL

Tech21Century
Firewall.cx

Copyright © 2023 | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Hire Me | Contact | Amazon Disclaimer | Delivery Policy

0 shares