Re: Is it possible to share a physical interface and a routing

You are the man, good stuff indeed!!!

For me, my slogan for today is

"Fresh snow, on PTO, lets go!"

me = snowboarding today

Have a great day team!

Andrew Lissitz

.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Atsuhiro NAKAMURA
<a-naka_at_mtf.biglobe.ne.jp>wrote:

> Dear Andrew,
>
> Thank you very much, your advise and the CCO document helped me and it's
> working fine now.
>
> I just put vrf static route with interface option, very simple solution.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Achi :)
>
>
> Dear Andrew,
>>
>> Thank you for your comments and providing your knowledge!
>>
>> Wow, "Route Leaking"... I didn't know that, sounds interesting.
>>
>> Anyway I try it today and update soon.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Achi :)
>>
>> I did something similar in my lab when trying to learn VRF Lite. I do
>>> not have the set up running anymore ... ;-(
>>>
>>> Basically you have VRFs off of a global router and you need to share some
>>> access to and from the VRF / global tables. This can be done via a manual
>>> process.
>>> In my lab, I used global static routes to advertise these VRF resources
>>> into the global table. I simply redistributed these static routes into my
>>> global OSPF and now every other global router knew of these destinations.
>>>
>>> I then used static routes within the VRF's routing table to advertise
>>> reachability to global resources. Again, I redistributed the static routes
>>> into my VRF routing process.
>>> Lastly when return traffic would come from global locations and hit my
>>> global router, I used static routes to the inside VRF interface. Sounded
>>> weird to me too! But it works fine on the router and return traffic was
>>> routed just fine.
>>> Everything worked and it was a bugger to get working ... mostly because I
>>> had to think through everything and I was learning the entire time. (watch
>>> the ugly word wrap):
>>>
>>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk436/tk832/technologies_configuration_example09186a0080231a3e.shtml
>>>
>>> Good luck and hit us back with any questions and or comments,
>>>
>>> Andrew Lissitz
>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>> 2010/2/1 <a-naka_at_mtf.biglobe.ne.jp <mailto:a-naka_at_mtf.biglobe.ne.jp>>
>>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> Is it possible to share a physical interface and a routing by some
>>> VRFs?
>>>
>>> I need to connect one local hub CE router R1 and some remote spoke
>>> CE routers R2, R3, ..., Rx via GRE tunnel.
>>> I also need to isolate them by using VRF on R1, because remote sites
>>> address space can be overlapped.
>>>
>>> R1 fa0/0 -------+------- R2
>>> +------- R3
>>> +------- .
>>> +------- .
>>> +------- .
>>> +------- Rx
>>>
>>> To establish GRE tunnel for each remote spoke CE router, I want to
>>> share the physical interface fa0/0 and default route via the
>>> interface by those VRFs.
>>> I don't want to configure several loopback interfaces for every each
>>> site, because I have only 1 global ip address which is reachable
>>> from each remote site.
>>>
>>> I would appreciate it if anybody gave me an idea.
>>>
>>> Achi :)
>>>
>>>
>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrew Lee Lissitz
>>> all.from.nj_at_gmail.com <mailto:all.from.nj_at_gmail.com>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
Andrew Lee Lissitz
all.from.nj_at_gmail.com
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net