On 30/Apr/15 18:41, Mike wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to ask for the collective opinion on routing in service > provider network serving broadband subscribers: > > I have an ASR1k and will be terminating PPPoE broadband > subscribers here. I'll also be terminating my primay internet feed > (BGP) here, and I the future I will have 3 providers and will be > multihomed. I also will have some MPLS vpns for certain customers. > > 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 simple. Internet routes in a VRF is not simple - too dependent on hardware and software capabilities, without having to worry about what the vendors do with the hardware or the software in future revisions. I know a few ISP's that went this router back in 2003, when MPLS was all-the-rage; they're finding that tearing down this wall of complexity is the way forward, but alas, mighty painful. Mark. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
