[c-nsp] Loopback Advertise in OSPF

[Mark Tinka]

On Thursday 28 February 2008, Phil Mayers wrote:

> Yes I read that, but I am having a hard time seeing what
> the fundamental difference is between "redis connected"
> inside a VRF versus not (for the same protocol). Surely
> if one is bad, the other is?

Because a vanilla VPN VRF has a very limited scope, and 
thus, far fewer routes than one would have in the global 
routing table. The predictability of what routes will be 
installed into the VRF via redistribution is highly 
deterministic.

Redistributing all static or connected routes into a routing 
protocol on, say, a router running BRAS services or one 
with hundreds/thousands of customers, would have a much 
more different effect on scalability and predictability.

This is not to say some VRF's are not large (highly 
connected customers buying L3VPN services from an ISP) - 
naturally, one would have to consider scalability issues in 
such a situation, e.g., running a routing protocol over the 
PE-CE link.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20080228/2c1c759b/attachment.bin