[c-nsp] route-target import on non-leaking PEs

[Andrew Miehs]

I thought the standard convention was <routerLoopback>:<vrf number>

Looking for the document...

Andrew


On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Phil Mayers <p.mayers at imperial.ac.uk>wrote:

> On 13/12/12 14:15, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2012-12-13, at 4:29 AM, Adam Vitkovsky <adam.vitkovsky at swan.sk> wrote:
>>
>>  Using common RD in a vrf is asking for trouble if route-reflection is
>>> used.
>>>
>>> Let's say you have two PEs advertising default for vrf inet -if you use
>>> RRs
>>> to spread the routes throughout the backbone -RRs will only advertise one
>>> (best path)default route to all PEs.
>>> Now with unique RD per PE RRs will consider default form each PE as a
>>> unique
>>> route sending both to all PEs.
>>> Than you are ready for fast convergence.
>>> adam
>>>
>>
>> Hold on, are you saying that within a single VRF, you can actually use
>> more than one RD?
>>
>
> Yes. In fact, that's *required* if you want to do multi-path.
>
> route target controls what gets "into" a VRF. RD is just a unique value
> that prefixes the route. It can be completely different.
>
> FWIW we use the convention of:
>
> xxx:N
>
> ...where N is the last octet of the routers loopback, so the RD is
> different on each router.
>
> There are differing opinions about the wisdom of this strategy - see here,
> for example:
>
> http://blog.ioshints.info/**2012/07/bgp-route-replication-**
> in-mplsvpn-pe.html<http://blog.ioshints.info/2012/07/bgp-route-replication-in-mplsvpn-pe.html>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp<https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp>
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/**pipermail/cisco-nsp/<http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/>
>