[c-nsp] Internet inside a VRF?

[Jose Madrid]

I would like to understand why you guys would do this? What is the
reasoning behind this? Super granular control? Cant this level of
granularity be achieved with route-maps?

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:27 PM, Dan Armstrong <dan at beanfield.com> wrote:

> We have all our Internet peers and customers inside a VRF currently, and our Cisco SE thinks we're stark raving mad, and should redesign and put everything back in the global table.
>
>
> This is all on ASR 9Ks and 7600s.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2012-03-13, at 8:12 PM, Pshem Kowalczyk wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 14 March 2012 11:59, Dan Armstrong <dan at beanfield.com> wrote:
>>> I know this topic has been discussed a million times, but just wanted to get an updated opinion on how people are feeling about this:
>>>
>>>
>>> In a service provider network, how do people feel about putting the big Internet routing table, all their peers and customers inside a VRF?  Keep the global table for just infrastructure links…
>>
>> In my previous role we've done just that. One internet VRF for all
>> transit functions, separate vrfs for peering and customers and
>> import-export statements to tie them all together. All done on ASR1k
>> (mainly 1006, but a few of 1002 as well).
>>
>> kind regards
>> Pshem
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/