> 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?
Make sure dynamic leaking VRF->GRT works for PPPoE unnumbered. This was not supported in XR last I checked (5.1.1), never tried with XE. You have VASI interfaces available in XE to get around any (potential) route leaking limitations. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
