Hi Duane,
Thanks for your reply.
I had injected routes into both VRFs, a "show ip route vrf <name> static"
also shows that the route exists, but it just doesn't take that path.
Performed a traceroute, but not going anywhere.
Regards,
Cheeyong
At 12:03 PM 2/11/02 +0200, Duane de Witt wrote:
>Try injecting the routes into both VRF's. If you do a traceroute vrf you
>should see that the routing tables are causing the packets to take that
>path.
>
>Regards
>
>Duane de Witt
>Network Engineer
>Siemens Business Services
>Tel. +27 11 380 4740
>Fax. +27 11 380 4710
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tay Chee Yong [mailto:tcy@pacific.net.sg]
>Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 12:03 PM
>To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
>Subject: [nsp] Configuring VPN Routing/Forwarding
>
>Hi there,
>
>Have anyone out there configured the above with any of your customers or
>
>clients??
>
>I have this scenario over here, and need some advise.
>
> vrf1 | | vrf2
> S1/0 | | S1/1
> ---------------------------
> | Cisco 7206 |
> ---------------------------
> F1/0 | | F2/0
> vrf1 | | vrf 2
>
>I had configured 2 vrf on the router, as shown above. It seems that
>whenever I want to reach F2/0 from F1/0, it will always go out by S1/0,
>and
>returned by S1/1 before reaching F2/0. This is bad, as it would consume
>the
>WAN Link's bandwidth. I would like to have the inter-vrf traffic to be
>within the router. Any advise from you guys out there??
>
>Really appreciate it.
>
>Regards,
>Cheeyong
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:13:04 EDT