On Thursday 28 February 2008, Phil Mayers wrote: > Yes I read that, but I am having a hard time seeing what > the fundamental difference is between "redis connected" > inside a VRF versus not (for the same protocol). Surely > if one is bad, the other is?
Because a vanilla VPN VRF has a very limited scope, and thus, far fewer routes than one would have in the global routing table. The predictability of what routes will be installed into the VRF via redistribution is highly deterministic. Redistributing all static or connected routes into a routing protocol on, say, a router running BRAS services or one with hundreds/thousands of customers, would have a much more different effect on scalability and predictability. This is not to say some VRF's are not large (highly connected customers buying L3VPN services from an ISP) - naturally, one would have to consider scalability issues in such a situation, e.g., running a routing protocol over the PE-CE link. Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ 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/
