[c-nsp] Internet inside a VRF?

[Ge Moua]

In R&E networks, separation of commodity Internet-1 and Internet-2 traffic.

--
Regards,
Ge Moua

University of Minnesota Alumnus
Email: moua0100 at umn.edu
--


On 3/13/12 8:17 PM, Jose Madrid wrote:
> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> 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/