Hi, I don't think there is a simple solution to that problem. Here are two ideas that we came up with to solve our issues and still maintain relatively 'clean' design.
1. With border routers as CEs - run a trunk between the PE and border routers with one vlan per vrf. That gives you ability to put a static in a vrf. 2. Turn the border routers into PEs and move the internet table into a vrf. From that vrf you can leak only specific routes (like the default). Ultimately we implemented second option (mainly because it was easier to scale). kind regards Pshem 2009/10/20 Justin Shore <[email protected]>: > I'm having to rush a MPLS/VPN into service this week. Certain customers > will connect into this MPLS/VPN on PEs facing L2 switches with sub-ints in > the correct VRF, MLPPP bundles, direct connect to PEs, etc (lots of variety > down the road). Simple so far. The majority of the traffic will exit our > network out another PE at a peering point across our network, exiting out > another interface also assigned to the same VRF. Still simple. I'm doing > similar things today to support our data center and some other L3VPNs. Easy > stuff. > > The problem that I'm faced with is figuring out how to insert a default > route into that MPLS/VPN. I do this today with the data center VRFs with > the assistance of a FWSM in our core. I insert a default route pointed to > the backside of the customer's context on the FWSM; that route is a static > in the VRF. The FWSM bridges the gap between my MPLS/VPN and my default VRF > quite nicely. However in this situation I can't use the FWSMs. I need to > extract traffic from the VRF for the private network and out into the > default VRF on my core where I keep my Internet routes. Longest-match will > take care of the MPLS/VPN routes to properly route traffic to my peer. > Everything else needs to get out of the VRF and to the Internet. > > At my main POP I'm planning on inserting 2 default routes, 1 from each core > router with different weights. My daul core routers are homed to both of my > border routers. Here's the simplified topology: > > > BR1 BR2 > | \/ | > | /\ | > | / \ | > P1----P2----PE1--Peer > | | > | | > PE2 PE3 > | | > CE1 CE2 > > There are more Ps and PEs but this gets the general idea across. > > I've come across route-leaking examples but they all require me to point > traffic to an outward-facing interface. Ie, I can't just point the default > route to a specific upstream-facing interface. Is there another way? I > can't see a solution with importing routes at the route-target level. Can I > point it to a loopback outside of the VRF? > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk436/tk832/technologies_configuration_example09186a0080231a3e.shtml > > This is probably a simple process but I haven't had to do it before without > the FWSM which made it trivially easy. What simple solution have I > overlooked and will kick myself for missing later? > > Thanks > Justin > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
