Hi,
Yes, everything - including internet table, only infrastructure runs
in the global one. As many have noticed the pain of getting anything
going between the global table and the vrfs is just too much. All I
miss now is ability to do a static route from vrf to another vrf ;-)
but for now vrf im
Clue Store wrote:
> Anyone using a vrf for their global tables?? This solution could possibly
> work for me but not sure what insane issues would come up by doing this.
After trying several other approaches and failing, "if you can't beat
them, join them..."
We use the "global table" only for in
> >It would be great to have a simple global-vrf route exchange feature
> though.
Anyone using a vrf for their global tables?? This solution could possibly
work for me but not sure what insane issues would come up by doing this.
___
cisco-nsp mailing l
Tim Durack wrote:
Amen to that.
I've played around with the various loopback strategies, including
using a gre tunnel that originates/terminates on the same PE. It
worked, but didn't seem like a scalable solution.
A dot1q trunk between two ports (if your not using a switch platform as
you
Just additional Info
Here's what "my" Cisco Technical sayed last time i looked at it...
You can not point the next-hop to the local routers interface.
Development does not plan on supporting this configuration. <
Looks bad - I did it with a "golden Cable" - Physcal crossover loop..
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Luan Nguyen wrote:
> You could also use a GRE tunnel for the connection as well.
> Jeff is right that this topic keeps coming up every so often. I wonder why
> Cisco won't just make this easier for people.
>
> --
> Luan N
y, June 16, 2009 4:18 PM
> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [c-nsp] Global Route Leaking on same PE
>
> Hi All,
>
> Looked through the archives but couldn't find anything about
> this specific issue. I'm trying to leak a route from the
> global table
Thanks for the replies all.
>
>
> >I maybe wrong, but seems this was related to resolving the CEF adjacency
> to a physical interface ?
> >I understand that you could then use the ip route vrf command, adding the
> interface in the ip route statement.
>
>>
>>
>
Tried this and it said vpn routes
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 07:23:45PM +0200, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote:
> The last time I've seen discussion on this topic, you had to have an
> external back-to-back connection between a VRF interface and a global
> interface.
Depending on the platform, you can do it with a GRE tunnel with both
ends on
that you could then use the ip route vrf command, adding
the interface in the ip route statement.
-Original Message-
From: Clue Store [mailto:cluest...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 4:18 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Global Route Leaking on same PE
H
gt; To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [c-nsp] Global Route Leaking on same PE
>
> Hi All,
>
> Looked through the archives but couldn't find anything about
> this specific issue. I'm trying to leak a route from the
> global table on a PE to an iterface that is on the same
Clue Store wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Looked through the archives but couldn't find anything about this specific
> issue. I'm trying to leak a route from the global table on a PE to an
> iterface that is on the same PE but I get the folowwing when I try to just
> point it to a loopback.
>
> ip route
Hi All,
Looked through the archives but couldn't find anything about this specific
issue. I'm trying to leak a route from the global table on a PE to an
iterface that is on the same PE but I get the folowwing when I try to just
point it to a loopback.
ip route vrf test 64.193.x.x 255.255.255.
13 matches
Mail list logo
