[c-nsp] inet vrf

[Murphy, William]

The problem for me is that the 6500 seems to do it even if you don't have
MPLS enabled.  The fact that you are running BGP inside VRF causes it to
generate labels.  If I can run IGP inside VRF why then does BGP running
inside VRF automatically assuming we want to do MPLS or L3VPN?  More to the
root of your question, the problem for me is TCAM consumption and there is
some label scanning process that is adding about 20% utilization to my CPU.
I am carrying full I1 routes and that is a lot of labels.

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Phil Mayers
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:04 AM
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] inet vrf

On 17/03/10 00:09, Tim Durack wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Manu Chao<linux.yahoo at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> This feature is a nice label allocation optimisation, are you using this
>> command on RTR-2?
>
> Yes, both routers of a pair. Seems to me like it should really be the
> default behavior.
>

Why? Obviously it's a label space optimisation for places with lots of 
LSPs but I'm honestly curious - what's the downside of generating an LSP 
for routes with next-hops?
_______________________________________________
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/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4408 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20100317/39ecf48a/attachment-0001.bin>