[37692] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: A question on CE to PE route exchanges ...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Israel)
Tue May 22 13:51:52 2001
From: Dave Israel <davei@biohazard.demon.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15114.42666.10832.677853@biohazard.demon.digex.net>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 13:49:30 -0400
To: raszuk@cisco.com
Cc: davei@biohazard.demon.digex.net,
Elwin Eliazer <elwinietf@yahoo.com>, alex.mondrus@ipoptical.com,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Re: A question on CE to PE route exchanges ... (Robert Raszuk)
Reply-To: davei@biohazard.demon.digex.net
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 5/21/2001 at 14:18:15 -0700, Robert Raszuk said:
>
> > not be interested. The issue here is that Cisco will tend to
> > add IGP routes to the default table, not the VPN table. Bad
> > things ensue.
>
> What ... ? For protocols that have been vrf aware routes go into vrfs
> and not global RIB.
That's the problem: not all the IGP's (specifically, not ours) are
aware, and handling for a non-aware IGP on a VRF interface is
more dangerous than one might expect.
-Dave
