At 3:18 PM +0000 2/26/03, Steve Wilson wrote: >Charles, >The 6509 switch needs some configuration in the background to create a >"virtual router".
A bit of a heads-up on this term. It's conceptually useful, but be aware that "virtual router" was considered to be an alternate VPN model to RFC 2547, generally promoted by Nortel and Lucent. There have been LOTS of IETF arguments about the term. I didn't make myself popular at one meeting by mentioning "we sure can't define virtual router, but it's nice we have a virtual router redundancy protocol (VRRP is the standards track equivalent to HSRP)." I was severely corrected that I needed to distinguish between "virtual router" and "virtual router," depending on whether the emphasis was on "virtual" or "router." In HSRP/VRRP, the virtual router refers to a single conceptual router seen by hosts, but is actually implemented across multiple platforms. The VPN people thought of virtual routers as multiple independent routing (control and forwarding) logical instances on the same platform. VRF is not quite the same concept, as it assumes more shared knowledge between routing instances than does a VR VPN. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63891&t=63728 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
