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/
