I think it makes more sense to do this based on the equipment they have. http://packetlife.net/blog/2009/apr/30/intro-vrf-lite/
Get the performance of routing on the 3k switches but the segregation of VRF-lite if they want it. Dan. On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Dan Letkeman <[email protected]> wrote: > The current network is routed via EIGRP, but also has a lot of vlan's > trunked everywhere...its an STP nightmare with various ISP's providing > service via fiber, and a host of wireless bridges, that are any where from > 10-40 miles.... My though was to use tunnel's and vrf-lite instead of > trunking vlan's everywhere, but from what I am hearing, GRE tunnels are not > going to perform. I have this working in a test network and it's working > well. Other than I have not tried a performance test. > > They do want separation on some of the networks, but not all. I have done > this in the past with access lists and vlan's but its a pain. Is there any > other way to segregate the traffic on routed network? > > Ideally they should have a router at each location and not a switch. > > Dan. > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Mattias Gyllenvarg <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Hi Dan >> >> Sounds like your getting of on the wrong foot. >> >> The 3560 can't do much more then routing and switching. No GRE or MPLS so >> you are pretty much stuck with trunking. >> >> VRFs will only be helpfull with MPLS unless you want VRF-lite (thats VRF >> that is local to one machine only). Then you still need the trunks and >> vlans. >> You can setup the VRFs to talk fairly easily, but why have the separation >> if you want them to talk? >> >> Sound like you should just replace the old machine with the new one. >> >> If you should do anything then setup the 3k boxes for dynamic routing so >> that they simply route the traffic instead of switching it. Then you wont >> have to add vlans for every new internet customer. But shaping may be >> harder to do as you dont have the customers interface in your core. >> >> //Mattias >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Dan Letkeman <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Just wondering if anyone can direct me down the correct path. I have >>> been >>> asked by a friend to help replace an ISR2851 with a new ASR1001. The >>> 2851 >>> currently does some route-maps for different networks and a few customers >>> as well as some shaping. They want to use the ASR to peer with an ISP >>> and >>> I suggested to use tunnel's and VRF's instead of trunking vlan's through >>> there network to the customers, like they are doing now. >>> >>> The network currently consists of mostly 3k switches and either fiber or >>> wireless trunks to about 45 different locations. The main goal is to >>> provide internet to each of the 45 locations each having there own public >>> ip/range. >>> >>> My thought was to create tunnels from the ASR to each of the locations >>> (each have a 3560 switch) and then to create VRF's on each tunnel and >>> assign a public IP to each VRF and then advertise those networks into the >>> global BGP table. >>> >>> First time I have done anything like this...Any thoughts? >>> >>> Dan. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Med Vänliga Hälsningar* >> *Mattias Gyllenvarg* >> > > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
