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

[Nathan Sipes]

I think in large part it depends on your goal.
I personally chose to keep everything out of my inet.0 table that wasn't
core related.
 From this I gained a couple of things.

   1. Only the PE's that I want to have the full internet table have it.
   2. My inet.0 table is small and it makes spotting routes that shouldn't
   exist easy.
   3. I also up until recently had a need to split providers and peerings
   in to separate VRFs and selectively control which traffic was allowed to
   utilize certain providers to ensure that the outbound and in bound traffic
   crossed the same set of firewalls. (this was the result of the conversion
   from one network topology/design to another)
   4. I also use my inet.0 instance for in-band management.

There are some benefits to doing it each way. It always comes back to what
do you want to accomplish?

Nathan


On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Mark Smith <ggglabs0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>