Hi, On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 03:08:05PM -0500, Chris Breger wrote: > I need to extend a small number of VRFs between 2 DCs connected by Metro > Ethernet terminating on 6500s. Currently I am using a routed interface to > route traffic between the sites with no VRF support. I have no need extend > Vlans across the DC only route traffic between the VRFs. I am trying to > determine the best option to add VRF support over this MetroE connection. > I am considering adjusting the interface to use dot1q encapsulation and > build sub-interface on the Ethernet interface which would be assigned to > specific VRFs. I have used this model within the DCs but I am not sure if > it is the best method between remote locations. Any suggestions would be > appreciated.
dot1q with VRFs works just fine on a WAN link as locally. The drawback
is that it doesn't really scale well to add every single VRF to every
single link in your network - so if you're adding VRFs regularily, or
the number of links is high, you might want to consider adding MPLS
and run the VRFs as "regular L3 VPNs".
Good examples on CCO.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
pgpxAD54rHYXC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
