Before I make a complete fool of myself I thought I'd ask you nerds. :-) I'm testing setting up a "central services" VRF that's supposed to service 30-something other VRFs. The idea is of course to have all the other VRFs be able to reach stuff within this VRF and vice versa. Overlapping addressing is not a concern here.
>From "school" (642-611) I learned that one would use different "hub" and "spoke" route-targets, like described in RFC 4364 4.3.5. Something like this: ip vrf CustA rd 1:1 route-target both 1:1 ! <-- "own" RT route-target import 2:1 ! <-- import from "spoke" RT route-target export 2:2 ! <-- export to "hub" RT ! ip vrf CustB rd 1:2 route-target both 1:2 ! <-- same as above... route-target import 2:1 route-target export 2:2 ! ip vrf CS description Central Services rd 3:1 route-target both 3:1 route-target import 2:1 ! <-- import from "hub" RT route-target export 2:2 ! <-- export to "spoke" RT ! What I don't like about this is that I'd have to configure each and every PE in each of the "customer" VRFs. Why not just do like this: ip vrf CustA rd 1:1 route-target both 1:1 ! <-- Completely plain VRF ! ip vrf CustB rd 1:2 route-target both 1:2 ! ip vrf CS description Central Services rd 3:1 route-target both 3:1 route-target both 1:1 ! <-- Import & export CustA route-target both 1:2 ! <-- Import & export CustB ! Any gotchas with this compared to the former? What am I missing that the school book example would give me? AFAICT I would only need this configuration on the PE devices actually hosting CS networks, since I export directly to all the relevant VRFs. This is very simplified. I would of course use an import map on the CS VRF and also make sure that only the relevant prefixes are exported from it. (The networks I'd like to "CS-ify" would be the only ones in that VRF on that PE; external routes (default etc.) would come from another PE that wouldn't have this configuration.) I also tested exporting via a route-map, and though it seems to scale a little better on account of not needing the "route-target export" statements, I can find no functional differences. Feel free to refer me to literature, "fine" or otherwise. :-) -- Peter _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
