[c-nsp] Internet in VRF

[Jordan Whited]

>    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?

Make sure dynamic leaking VRF->GRT works for PPPoE unnumbered. This was not supported in XR last I checked (5.1.1), never tried with XE.

You have VASI interfaces available in XE to get around any (potential) route leaking limitations.