[j-nsp] Internet routes in MPLS network, global table or own VRF?

[Keegan Holley]

That's really subjective so it depends on your network.   Placing the full
internet table in a VRF will could cause it to be advertised to PE routers
that may not need it, but if your routers can handle that it may not be a
big deal.  Also, filtering routes for things like partial tables becomes a
little bit more complicated since you'll have to match extended
communities. INET.0 is more or less just another VRF though.  Do you have
another use for INET.0 or are you just thinking it's cleaner to have
everything in VRF's?


2012/1/19 Mark Smith <ggglabs0 at gmail.com>

> Hi
>
> How should the global Internet routes be organized in IP/MPLS network?
> Should they be put into global (inet.0) routing table or in their own
> VRF (e.g. internet.inet.0)? Assume same P/PE routers are used to route
> internet and VRFs.
>
> What are the pros and cons of these approaches?
>
> Pointers to good materials are appreciated.
>
> (please excuse me if this is in the series of stupid questions ;)
>
> Thanks.
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>