[c-nsp] Internet in VRF

[Saku Ytti]

On (2015-04-30 09:41 -0700), Mike wrote:

Hey,

>     I think I want to have my default routing table carry mostly loopbacks
> and direct interface connected routes, while I want to stuff everything else
> into VRF's. Those other VRF's are likely to be Internet (full tables),
> Subscribers (all the /32's for PPPoE subscribers), and the odd vrf for any
> mpls vpn customers.  The challenge is that - I think - I would want to only
> leak a default route into any other non-Internet VRF that requires shared
> service access to it, which should keep the table sizes down. My question
> is, does this sound reasonable? Is there any reason I wouldn't want to set
> things up this way?

I like INET-in-VRF design. Technically overhead should be very minimal,
nothing in FIB and maybe minor, like 5% overhead in RIB.
But it will be heavily platform dependent what the actual implications are, I
think with ASR1k you're good to go.

-- 
  ++ytti