nanog mailing list archives
Re: A question on CE to PE route exchanges ...
From: Dave Israel <davei () biohazard demon digex net>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 13:49:30 -0400
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
Current thread:
- A question on CE to PE route exchanges ... Elwin Eliazer (May 18)
- Re: A question on CE to PE route exchanges ... Dave Israel (May 18)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: A question on CE to PE route exchanges ... Elwin Eliazer (May 19)
- RE: A question on CE to PE route exchanges ... Dave Israel (May 20)
- Re: A question on CE to PE route exchanges ... Robert Raszuk (May 21)
- Re: A question on CE to PE route exchanges ... Dave Israel (May 22)
- RE: A question on CE to PE route exchanges ... Dave Israel (May 20)