Bear in mind that IOS and IOS-XR do "per prefix" label allocation by default and that some vendors do not cope well with a high number of labels from what I can remember.
Regards Le 12-03-14 06:37, « Nick Ryce » <nick.r...@lumison.net> a écrit : >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/ _______________________________________________ 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/