Which of the following regarding route reflectors is TRUE?

Question

Options

• AOnly the route reflector is configured with a cluster id.
• BThere can only be one route reflector in a cluster.
• CClients should have iBGP sessions with each other to maintain the mesh.
• DThere can only be one level of route reflectors in the topology.

• A
  88% (15)
• C
  6% (1)
• D
  6% (1)

Explanation

Option A is correct because the cluster-id is a configuration attribute applied only to the route reflector to identify which cluster it belongs to - client routers require no cluster-id configuration. This is by design: clients remain unaware of the reflector topology and need only their iBGP session with the route reflector itself.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• B is false - multiple route reflectors can exist within a single cluster, which is a common redundancy design. Each simply shares the same cluster-id to prevent routing loops.
• C is the opposite of the purpose of route reflectors. RRs exist specifically to eliminate the full iBGP mesh requirement; clients peer only with the reflector, not with each other.
• D is false - hierarchical (multi-level) route reflector topologies are fully supported and commonly deployed in large networks, where regional RRs report to top-level RRs.

Memory tip: Think of the cluster-id as the reflector's "badge of authority" - only the boss (route reflector) wears the badge; the clients just follow its lead. If you remember that RRs exist to simplify client configuration, you can eliminate B, C, and D quickly since they all imply complexity or restriction that defeats the purpose.

No community discussion yet for this question.