[c-nsp] Internet inside a VRF?

[Harold Ritter]

Bear in mind that IOS and IOS-XR do "per prefix" label allocation by
default and that some vendors do not cope well with a high number of
labels from what I can remember.

Regards



Le 12-03-14 06:37, « Nick Ryce » <Nick.Ryce at lumison.net> a écrit :

>Does memory usage not increase by putting all the internet routes in a
>VRF?
>
>Nick
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
>[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
>michalis.bersimis at hq.cyta.gr
>Sent: 14 March 2012 09:47
>To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Internet inside a VRF?
>
>Hi,
>Putting internet in a vrf is not that bad. I agree with some people say
>that separate the global routing table with vrf is easier, especially for
>networks that are deploying MPLS routers from scratch. I don't see any
>advantages from putting internet Prefixes in the global routing table.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Michalis Bersimis
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:58:58 -0500
>From: Ge Moua <moua0100 at umn.edu>
>To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Internet inside a VRF?
>Message-ID: <4F600972.6040600 at umn.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
>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/
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/
>
>--
>
>This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
>solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
>If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. Any
>offers or quotation of service are subject to formal specification.
>Errors and omissions excepted.  Please note that any views or opinions
>presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not
>necessarily represent those of Pulsant.
>Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the
>presence of viruses.  Pulsant accept no liability for any
>damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/