I thought the standard convention was <routerLoopback>:<vrf number>
Looking for the document... Andrew On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Phil Mayers <[email protected]>wrote: > On 13/12/12 14:15, Jason Lixfeld wrote: > >> >> On 2012-12-13, at 4:29 AM, Adam Vitkovsky <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Using common RD in a vrf is asking for trouble if route-reflection is >>> used. >>> >>> Let's say you have two PEs advertising default for vrf inet -if you use >>> RRs >>> to spread the routes throughout the backbone -RRs will only advertise one >>> (best path)default route to all PEs. >>> Now with unique RD per PE RRs will consider default form each PE as a >>> unique >>> route sending both to all PEs. >>> Than you are ready for fast convergence. >>> adam >>> >> >> Hold on, are you saying that within a single VRF, you can actually use >> more than one RD? >> > > Yes. In fact, that's *required* if you want to do multi-path. > > route target controls what gets "into" a VRF. RD is just a unique value > that prefixes the route. It can be completely different. > > FWIW we use the convention of: > > xxx:N > > ...where N is the last octet of the routers loopback, so the RD is > different on each router. > > There are differing opinions about the wisdom of this strategy - see here, > for example: > > http://blog.ioshints.info/**2012/07/bgp-route-replication-** > in-mplsvpn-pe.html<http://blog.ioshints.info/2012/07/bgp-route-replication-in-mplsvpn-pe.html> > > ______________________________**_________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp<https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp> > archive at > http://puck.nether.net/**pipermail/cisco-nsp/<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/
