[c-nsp] equivalent of juniper "routing-instance" on sup720

[F. David Sinn]

Be careful with VRF-Lite on the Sup720.  There are a number of issues  
with it that I've found in my lab:

1)  Each port uses the same MAC address, regardless of VRF.
2)  VRF instances will ignore ARP's from other VRF instances, so if you  
have any broadcast domain where two VRF's will be able to talk to one  
another see #1 as the first problem and then manually configure ARP  
entries for each VRF.
3)  PBR does not work in a VRF.
4)  Not all management commands can be set to be tied to a VRF, so you  
will have to have a "default routing instance" for management.  My  
current short list on this is (and I'm not saying this is complete,  
VRF-Lite hasn't left my lab due to the above so your milage may vary):
	snmp-server community
	line vty
	ip name-server

Thanks!

David


On Feb 7, 2005, at 6:10 PM, David Prall wrote:

> VRF-Lite or Multi-VRF CE
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps259/ 
> prod_bulletin09186a0080
> 0921d7.html
>
>
> --
> David C Prall dcp at dcptech.com http://dcp.dcptech.com
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
>> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Phil Rosenthal
>> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 8:20 PM
>> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> Subject: [c-nsp] equivalent of juniper "routing-instance" on sup720
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Does anyone know if there's any way to get the equivalent of
>> a juniper
>> "routing-instance" on a sup720?  Eg, so I can have a routing
>> table that
>> will have all transit + peers, and another routing table that
>> will only
>> have "cheap" transit + peers, for two classes of customers?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --Phil
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>