>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bala Subrahmanyam Venkata [mailto:bsubrahm@doradosoftware.com]
>Sent: 15 October 2001 21:19
>To: Gary Tate
>Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
>Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Extranet in MPLS VPNs
>
>
>Thanx for the response Gary. I have some questions along the
>same lines.
>
>Does Juniper's implementation then mandates that for every
>site that needs
>to be in more than one VPN it must have its routes in a
>separate VRF routing
>instance ?
No this is not the case.
>For eg., if
>
>VPN A has sites Site1, Site2 and Site3
>VPN B has Site1 and Site2
>
>(assumption: Site1, Site2 & Site3 are attached to the same PE
>router. Each has its own CE Router in its site pointing to the PE.)
>
>then, it means Site1 & Site2 routes will be in a VRF routing instance
>("S1-S2") and Site3 routes will be in another VRF routing
>instance ("S3").
Yes this is correct.
>If Site1 again, becomes a part of some other VPN C, then a VRF routing
>instance is created for Site1 ("S1"). Also "S1-S2" routing instance is
>edited such that it contains only routes from Site2. VRF
>routing instance "S3" will still contain routes from Site3.
Yes this is esentially correct, if a site moves from one VPN to another
then its configuration must be moved to the correct VRF.
>And if there is a Site4 also having memberships to VPN A and
>VPN B, then its
>routes are in "S1-S2" VRF routing instance ??
Correct.
>> >P.S. A comment on the doc. Calling the sites as "VPNA", "VPNB"
>> >and "VPNAB"
>> >is confusing. Perhaps you can choose a better name that
>describes the
>> >scenario ?
>>
>> I will send this on the appropriate people internally. Do
>you have any
>> suggestions for names?
>
>Just call them Site A, Site B and Site AB. (BTW, I assume your
>"VPNAB" is a
>whole another site and does not mean that either Site A or
>Site B CE Router
>has an additional interface now on the PE...is that right ?)
This is correct and now I see the confusion. I will pass this on to the
author.
>
>EOM.
>
>/bala
>
>
>
>
>
>> >
>> >1. Per your doc the CE2 Router is in VPN A and VPN B. What
>if there is
>> >another CE Router (say 'CE6' Router) that is directly
>> >connected to the same
>> >PE Router (PE1 in your case) and it(CE6) is also part of VPN A
>> >and B ? Will
>> >its VRF be similar to that of VPNAB ?
>>
>> I believe in this case I would simply add the interface for
>CE6 into the
>> VRF, VPNAB and add the additional routes required for this new site.
>>
>> >2. On the same lines, what if CE6 instead is part of VPN A and
>> >some other VPN C ? How will this affect the configuration ?
>> >
>>
>> In this case you would have to create another VRF for VPN-AC with the
>> appropriate RIB-Groups.
>>
>> >Before you could research further, are these two cases
>'real world' ?
>> >
>>
>> With extranets I believe anything could be asked for.
>>
>> >
>> >TIA
>> >
>> >bala
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 05 2002 - 10:42:37 EDT