A large service provider operates an MPLS L3VPN network with multiple Route Reflectors (RRs) in the core. The network uses BGP as the control plane for both IPv4 unicast and VPNv4 routes. Recently, one of the RRs started flapping, causing route withdrawals to many clients. The network architect wants to improve stability. The RRs are fully meshed with each other and clients are configured as route-reflector clients. The RRs have both IPv4 and VPNv4 address families enabled. Which action should be taken to minimize the impact of an RR failure?
This provides redundancy; clients receive routes from multiple RRs, and if one RR fails, routes are still available via the other.
Why this answer
Configuring client-to-client reflection on the RRs and ensuring each PE is a client of at least two RRs provides redundancy; if one RR fails, routes are still available via the other RR. BGP PIC helps fast failover but does not prevent route withdrawal impact; add-paths increases paths but not redundancy; same cluster ID reduces redundancy.