[58958] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Internet routes in Gobal Routing Table or in a VRF ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Barak)
Sat Jun 7 23:08:15 2003
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 20:06:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Barak <thegameiam@yahoo.com>
To: m.rapoport@completel.fr, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <OF20EEEC77.C46EA4E1-ONC1256D2B.0060D562-C1256D3D.0059DE49@LocalDomain>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
The biggest benefit to using a VRF as I see it is that
you will help prevent accidental redistribution of
internet routes to VPN customers. Biggest downside:
$VENDOR_C and $VENDOR_R SEs will tell you that their
boxen will croak if you do it. Solution: $VENDOR_J
does support it.
-David Barak
--- m.rapoport@completel.fr wrote:
>
> Hello again,
> Another question for BGP VPN experts.
> If you provide Internet access and VPN service on
> the same MPLS Core
> network,
> what are the pro and cons to transport in the core
> the public internet
> routes (the full 120.000 prefixes)
> as VPN-V4 prefixes and announce them through a VRF
> rather than as common
> global routes ?
> What are the trends in terms of security vs memory
> vs stability ?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
=====
David Barak
-fully RFC 1925 compliant-
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
