Re: VRF TO GLOBAL PROBLEM

I don't think your example will help Marcin, you used next-hops, so
you depend on the upstream router to route between global and VRFs.
You can have bidirectional route leaking without next-hops only
between VRFs ( using MP-BGP ) on the same box, but not between global
and a VRF. Although in global you can add directly connected routes (
using exit interface instead of next-hop ) into a VRF, the other way
around doesn't work since you need to specify a next-hop. This is a
very annoying limitation :(.

@Marcin, to avoid this limitation I'm using only VRFs for routing on
my 6500's, and I use the global table only for management in case
something goes wrong in the VRFs.

Regards.

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Marko Milivojevic <markom_at_ipexpert.com> wrote:
> Marcin,
>
> I wrote the blog on the subject of the route leaking between VRF and
> the main table sometime ago. I think you will find the solution there:
>
> http://blog.ipexpert.com/2010/12/01/vrf-route-leaking/
>
> Short answer to your last question: yes :-)
>
> --
> Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427
> Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert
>
> FREE CCIE training: http://bit.ly/vLecture
>
> Mailto: markom_at_ipexpert.com
> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
> Web: http://www.ipexpert.com/
>
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 06:03, Marcin Zgola <MZgola_at_netrixllc.com> wrote:
>> Problem, I want to be able to communicate between VRF and global on the same router.
>>
>> I can leak routes but I need to specify next hop to be another router.
>>
>> Basically packet hits the router on VRF interface, and then it sends it to upstream router, and upstream router sends it back.
>>
>> Can this be avoided?????
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Thu Jan 06 2011 - 08:44:43 ART