Garry wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something here, but what's the "right" way of routing between VRF and non-VRF interfaces?
In my opinion, by being able to define a physical or logical interface between them.
Which you can currently, at cost of handling the packet twice. Which is silly, but you may be willing to pay that cost for your expected return.
Either with tunnels, or with any other two ethernet interface, two atm interfaces. One side is in one vrf and the other in another or global.
You can route, you can nat, you can firewall, you can ACL, you can account, you can graph, you treat it as an interface.
I've tried different things to keep the actual transition between VRF and non-VRF on the same router
This works fairly well as proof of concept ip vrf red ip vrf blue int l0 ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.255 int l1 ip address 10.1.1.2 255.255.255.255 int t0 tun sou l0 tun dest 10.1.1.2 ip vrf forwarding red ip address 10.2.1.1 255.255.255.252 int t1 tun sou l1 tun dest 10.1.1.1 ip vrf forwarding blue ip address 10.2.1.2 255.255.255.252 _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
