This limits the scope of a NAT rule/translation to the VRF specified in the NAT rule. The most common issue is that outside NATs were always global, even if you specified a VRF. You could not re-use the same translated address (pool) for another VRF / different real address...
Essentially this command ensures you have real per-VRF inside and outside translations which means you can re-use real and NAT'd addresses on a per VRF basis without any issues. This is now the default/native behavior of IOS XE. There is no match-in-vrf on that platform because it is not needed. ________________________________ From: Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) <[email protected]> To: David Warner <[email protected]>; [email protected] Sent: Wed, August 4, 2010 3:25:32 AM Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Match-in-VRF > Was hoping someone could advise with regards to what the NAT keywords > "match-in-vrf" achieves? We typically use this in production. However, Ive > just > been labbing NAT config using VRF lite and it doesnt appear to change > behaviour > and Cisco literature is unclear. With or without it, translations occur in > the > relevant VRF. not an expert, but do you use overlapping pools between vrfs? If you are not, you don't need "match-in-vrf".. take a look at http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Category:NAT oli _______________________________________________ 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/
