Does memory usage not increase by putting all the internet routes in a VRF?
Nick -----Original Message----- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of michalis.bersi...@hq.cyta.gr Sent: 14 March 2012 09:47 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Internet inside a VRF? Hi, Putting internet in a vrf is not that bad. I agree with some people say that separate the global routing table with vrf is easier, especially for networks that are deploying MPLS routers from scratch. I don't see any advantages from putting internet Prefixes in the global routing table. Best Regards, Michalis Bersimis ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:58:58 -0500 From: Ge Moua <moua0...@umn.edu> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Internet inside a VRF? Message-ID: <4f600972.6040...@umn.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed In R&E networks, separation of commodity Internet-1 and Internet-2 traffic. -- Regards, Ge Moua University of Minnesota Alumnus Email: moua0...@umn.edu -- On 3/13/12 8:17 PM, Jose Madrid wrote: > 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/ -- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. Any offers or quotation of service are subject to formal specification. Errors and omissions excepted. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Pulsant. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. Pulsant accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. _______________________________________________ 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/
