[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?
- Subject: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?
- From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka)
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:20:49 +0200
- In-reply-to: <CAPkb-7CPKhTHetUm2v+jK=TWsg33czpY37qqFVWaNYAYgfC-_A@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAC6=tfaYDaLLSHWcSg1ybkEB_CKVvtDrpShCSzPjDVFcQbhimw@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAC6=tfaR43LSW2YPBK3GQR4g057rO85WMQaHKkpJftt0M-7PiQ@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAC6=tfaJYGQmJqfcC+mT5RF=KmOiX69gQEqTDQFYGkRf4G=4sQ@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CAPkb-7CPKhTHetUm2v+jK=TWsg33czpY37qqFVWaNYAYgfC-_A@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/Nov/16 12:07, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> No filters. There are just no routes that will take a network packet that
> arrive on an interface in VRF internet and move it to an interface in VRF
> default without adding a MPLS header to mark the VRF. With the MPLS header
> the packet type is no longer IPv4 but MPLS.
>
> Therefore there is no way you from the internet or from a customer link can
> even attempt to inject packets that would be received by the OSPF process.
> Since we use 10.0.0.0/8 and our vrf internet has no such route, you would
> just get no route to host if you tried.
Good for you.
We don't run the whole "Internet in a VRF" architecture (too many moving
parts), so not having our IGP being exposed to IP helps :-).
Mark.