I would like to understand why you guys would do this? What is the reasoning behind this? Super granular control? Cant this level of granularity be achieved with route-maps?
Sent from my iPhone On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:27 PM, Dan Armstrong <d...@beanfield.com> wrote: > We have all our Internet peers and customers inside a VRF currently, and our > Cisco SE thinks we're stark raving mad, and should redesign and put > everything back in the global table. > > > This is all on ASR 9Ks and 7600s. > > > > > > On 2012-03-13, at 8:12 PM, Pshem Kowalczyk wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On 14 March 2012 11:59, Dan Armstrong <d...@beanfield.com> wrote: >>> I know this topic has been discussed a million times, but just wanted to >>> get an updated opinion on how people are feeling about this: >>> >>> >>> In a service provider network, how do people feel about putting the big >>> Internet routing table, all their peers and customers inside a VRF? Keep >>> the global table for just infrastructure links… >> >> In my previous role we've done just that. One internet VRF for all >> transit functions, separate vrfs for peering and customers and >> import-export statements to tie them all together. All done on ASR1k >> (mainly 1006, but a few of 1002 as well). >> >> kind regards >> Pshem > > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
