The MPLS-OPS Archive

[Rajiv Asati <rajiva@cisco.com>]

At 08:01 AM 1/27/2004, M. ELK wrote:

>Say at PE1 we have the following config :
>
>ip  vrf red
>rd 1:1
>import 1:10
>export 1:20
>
>ip route vrf red 10.10.1.0/24 intf1
>ip route vrf red 10.10.2.0/24 intf2
>
>address-family ipv4 vrf red
>redistribute static
>aggregate-address 10.10.0.0  255.255.0.0
>exit-address-family
>
>ip  vrf green
>rd 1:2
>import 1:20
>export 1:10
>
>ip route vrf green 10.9.1.0/24 intf3
>ip route vrf green 10.9.2.0/24 intf4
>
>address-family ipv4 vrf green
>redistribute static
>aggregate-address 10.9.0.0  255.255.0.0
>exit-address-family
>
>
>1- If we assume that any implementation should not differentiate between 
>VRF's on different
>    PE's and VRF's on the same PE's so :
>    VRF red will have a route 10.9/16 ,and VRF green will have a route 
> 10.10/16 .
>    is any implem able to do that ?
>   if yes : say for 10.9/16 in VRF red , what will be the Next_hop 
> interface ??? .

Before going to the "red" VRF, please keep in mind that 10.9/16 will be 
installed in the VRF RIB (of green) with the null0 outgoing interface since 
it is an aggregated route. Of course, the component routes will be present 
with the valid next-hops.
So there will be three 10.9.0.0/16 addresses that will get advertised by 
the BGP and will have following next-hops in the VRF RIB -
         10.9.0.0/16     => null0
         10.9.1.0/24     => intf3
         10.9.2.0/24     => intf4

Hence, the "red" VRF RIB will point to the same.


>2- Specific to cisco implementation .
>    guess the above as configured is not workable ,ie: 10.9/16 will not 
> show in VRF red
>    neither 10.10/16 in VRF green , is it correct ?

No.
Importing/exporting within VRFs is what the extranet application is all 
about and should work fine.

Cheers,
Rajiv

>   if yes : assume we added the following
>   loopback 100 associated with VRF red .
>   loopback 200 associated with VRF green .
>   ip route vrf red 10.10./16 LB100
>   ip route vrf green  10.9/16 LB200
>
>   is 10.9/16 will appear in VRF red with next_hop = LB200 ,similiarly
>   10.10/16 will appear in VRF green with next_hop = LB100 .
>
>  say a ping request with source 10.10.1.1 and destination 10.9.1.1 
> recieved at VRF red ,it will be
>  routed to LB200 .   LB200 after a L3 lookup in VRF green will direct the 
> packet to intf3 .
>  The ping reply with source 10.9.1.1 and destination 10.10.1.1 is 
> received at VRF green and
>  routed to LB100 . LB100 after L3 lookup in VRF red will direct the 
> packet to intf1 and connectivity
>  between the 2 VRF is achieved .
>
>  is the above workable ???
>  note : i have no access to a test bed to confirm the above .
>
>Brgds
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* 
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
>-------
>The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
>Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml


-------
The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml