On (2015-04-30 09:41 -0700), Mike wrote: Hey,
> I think I want to have my default routing table carry mostly loopbacks > and direct interface connected routes, while I want to stuff everything else > into VRF's. Those other VRF's are likely to be Internet (full tables), > Subscribers (all the /32's for PPPoE subscribers), and the odd vrf for any > mpls vpn customers. The challenge is that - I think - I would want to only > leak a default route into any other non-Internet VRF that requires shared > service access to it, which should keep the table sizes down. My question > is, does this sound reasonable? Is there any reason I wouldn't want to set > things up this way? I like INET-in-VRF design. Technically overhead should be very minimal, nothing in FIB and maybe minor, like 5% overhead in RIB. But it will be heavily platform dependent what the actual implications are, I think with ASR1k you're good to go. -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
