On 05/01/2015 12:00 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
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.
What exactly are the downsides? I don't have 100's of routers and transits and peerings and such, but if I'm going to be painting myself into a corner I'd like to know about it before it do it.
Thank you. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
