[c-nsp] VRFs

[Luan M Nguyen]

Hi Oli,
Does this mean that for example, you have 2 LANs, one in a VRF and one in
the global, then they can't communicate?
I have a situation where your WAN is in a VRF, the LAN in the global.  For
Internet access, I use NAT.   Saw the packet come back to the router but
doesn't know how to get out of the VRF and back into the LAN.  I put a route
to a switch address connected to that LAN, then things are okay...but what
if you don't have a switch and just a layer 2 device?  
A while back, there was a gentleman suggested that he had to create 2
loopbacks, one in VRF, and build a tunnel between VRF and Global...but that
is just too much work.  Is there a better way of doing that?  To do:  ip
route vrf FOO x.x.x.0/24 <next-hop> global, where next-hop is just an
interface on the router?

Thanks.

-luan

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Oliver Boehmer
(oboehmer)
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 1:53 AM
To: Jason Berenson
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] VRFs

Jason Berenson <> wrote on Monday, July 14, 2008 7:37 AM:

> Greetings,
> 
> I know how to route leak between VRFs with BGP but is it possible to
> set a default route within a VRF pointing to an IP in the global
> routing table?  If so can anyone point me to some good documentation
> or perhaps a sample snippit?

ip route vrf FOO 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 <next-hop> global

the next-hop must not be a local address of the PE..

	oli
_______________________________________________
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/