Re: FRR for BGP route reflectors?

["Evan S. Weiner via NANOG" <nanog () lists nanog org>]

We run FRR for RR’s with full tables in the default vrf and a L3VPN plus multiple additional L3VPN’s. 6PE, 6VPE both 
work. No complaints.

[cid:ignored-in-diff-30BE7347-88C8-456D-95A2-E75A56BBF1DB]
Evan S. Weiner  ​​​​
Managing Member ,       Hosted Backbone, LLC
d: (804) 549-4899<tel:(804)%20549-4899>  |      m: (804) 677-9544<tel:(804)%20677-9544>
e: eweiner () hostedbackbone net<mailto:eweiner () hostedbackbone net>         |      w: 
<https://www.hostedbackbone.net/> www.hostedbackbone.net<https://www.hostedbackbone.net/>

________________________________
From: Tom Samplonius via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 2:22:14 AM
To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog () lists nanog org>
Cc: Tom Samplonius <tom () samplonius org>
Subject: FRR for BGP route reflectors?

Hi,

 Is Free Range Routing (FRR) a viable choice for a pure BGP route reflector for a regional ISP with ~ 35 routers?  A 
mix of L3VPN-MPLS and BGP-EVPN services.  Full transit, plus some peering.  About 5 x L3VPN instances, and maybe 500 x 
EVPN-MPLS instances.

 I don’t see a lot of posts of people using FRR for RR.  And not a lot of people reporting issues, so maybe it is just 
the perfect RR solution?



Tom

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/STLGD7H4RECEM3F4IFDWRZWXL7L4M5KJ/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/HA744BGXOPRM6ONTYTL5RWMNGKJZZUHL/