PBR / VRF-lite / 6500 SUP720-10G-3C

Hello.
I have to make a config with PBR in a VRF, PBR tied to an IP SLA sensor also ran into the same VRF, is there any restriction regarding this on this supervisor ?

It is supported
BTW, your IOS is at least 7 years old.
VRF-Lite Aware PBR
Cisco IOS Software Release 12.2(33)SXH1 also introduces the VRF-Lite Aware Policy Based Routing (PBR) feature, which provides the ability to configure PBR on a VPN routing/forwarding instance. This feature allows users to configure VRF on an ingress interface (VRF-Lite) and apply PBR using the Cisco Express Forwarding table for that VRF. VRF-Lite Aware PBR is supported on all Cisco Catalyst 6500 Series Supervisor Engine 720, Cisco Catalyst 6500 Supervisor Engine 32, and ME-6524 products.
link:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/switches/catalyst-6500-series-switches/product_bulletin_cisco_catalyst_6500_virtual_switching_system_1440.html
HTH

Similar Messages

VRF-Lite with 6500 w/ Sup720

I am working with a customer who would like to utilize path isolation in their network using VRF-Lite. I am currently debating between the use of GRE tunnels vs. VLANs between 3 core switches they currently have in place today. This is going to be overlay network on top of what they currently have. The core is all L2 today with 802.1q trunks between each of 3 cores in a ring topology. Closets are single homed into the core throughout.
My question is regarding GRE vs. VLANs. Currently, we are looking at having to deploy 12 VRFs to support 12 seperate network types they would like to isolate. The Access layer switches will trunk to the cores where the core will apply VRFs to specific VLANs based on their role.
Which is going to be a more scalable solution from a performance and adminstration standpoint. GRE, VLANs, or MPLS?
Currently the GRE implementation is going to require that we configure many loopbacks and tunnels on each core in order to get the VRFs talking to each other in each core. The VLAN approach will require 24 VLANs per core (assuming we would go with PTP vs Multipoint for routing inside the VRF).
Any thoughts on which way to proceed? From what i have read GRE is more appropriate when you have multiple hops between VRF tables, which in this case we do not. I am just concerned with loopbacks,tunnels, and then routing on top of that the GRE solution will lack scalability as they add more VRFs. A PTP VLAN will pose a similar problem without the need for loopbacks which should simplify the solution.
Can we use MPLS here and just do PE to PE MPLS and still get the VRF segmentation we need between cores?
I would like eventually migrate the entire core to L3 completely but today we are stuck with having to support legacy networks (DEC/LAT/SNA) and have to keep some L2 in place.
Whats the best approach here?

Shine,
I actually ended up with basically the same design you are talking about here except that I ended up adding a couple 6500 +FWSM and NAC L3/L2 CAM/CAS into the mix.
Here is the high level overview
1. Every Closet had a minimum of 6 VLANs - unique to the stack or closet switch - Subnets were created for each VLAN as well - no spanning of L2 VLANs across switch stacks.
2. VLANs were assigned for - Voice, Data, LWAPP VLAN, Guest/Unauthorized, Switch/Device Management, and at least 1 special purpose VLAN - (Lab, Building Controls, Security, etc).
3. Then we trunked all the VLANs back to 1 of 3 cores - 6509s with Sup-720s
4. Each Core 6509 was configured for each L2 VLAN with a L3 SVI (The VLANs configured here were not configured on any other cores - we didn't have available fiber runs to do any type of redundant pathing across multiple cores so it wasn't valid in this design to configure VLAN SVIs on more than one core).
5. Each L3 SVI was assigned to the appropriate VRF based on use - Voice, Data, LWAPP, etc
6. Spanning-Tree Roots for all VLANs trunked to a core were specific to that core - they did not trunk between Cores - no loops
7. Each Core was connected via a L2 Trunk that carried Point to Point VLANs for VRFs traffic - We had an EIGRP AS assigned to each VRF on the link - so we had 6 VRFs and 6 EIGRP AS per trunk.
8. This design occurred on each core x2 as it connected to the other cores in a triangle core fashion.
9. Each of the Cores had a trunk to to 6500 with a FWSM configured - VRF/L3 PTP VLAN design continued here as well
10. The 6500+FWSM was configured with multiple SVIs and VRFs - we had to issue mult-vlan mode on the FWSM to get it to work.
11. Layer 2 NAC was configured with VLAN translation coming into the Core 6500/FWSM for Wireless in L2 InBand Mode - the L3 SVIs were configured on the clean side of the NAC CAM so traffic was pulled through the CAM from from the dirty side - where the controller mapped host SSIDs to appropriate VLANs. We only had to configure a couple host VLANs here - Guest and Private so this was not much of an issue - Private was NAC enabled, Guest VLAN/SVI was mapped to a DMZ on the firewall
12. For Layer 3 NAC we justed used an out of band CAM configurations with ACLs on the Unauthorized VLAN
It worked like a charm.
If I had to do it all over again I would go with MPLS/BGP for more scalability. Configuring trunks between the cores and then having the mulitple EIGRP AS/PTP VLANs works well in networks this small but it doesn't scale indefinately. It sounds like your network is quite large. I would look into MPLS between a set of at least 3-4 Core PE/CE devices. Do you plan on building a pure MPLS core for tagged switched traffic only? Is your campus and link make up significant enough to benefit from such a flexible design?

Extending VRF-lite to 6500??

Hello,
I have a simple scenario, where there is a 6500 connected to a router (ISP end), which we have planned to implement vrf-lite on.... there are basically 2 VLANs on the LAN, one production and one guest... we need to isolate the routing table instances between the production and guest.. we have planned to configure trunk between the 6500 and PE router at the ISP end. 6500 acts as a CE here.
Now, I want to extend the VRF information from the PE to the 6500 CE, since the layer 3 VLANs terminate on the 6500. i will define the same VRF information on the 6500 and isolate VRF routing tables for the guest/production vlan on the LAN also.. I know we will require to configure VRF, RD, BGP etc on the PE router and do a "ip vrf forwarding" on the subinterface of the router. What is the configuration required on the 6500 to extend the VRF-lite information to the end vlans ????? does anyone have any sample configs or links to which i can refer ?
Raj

Well,
first a sample config (not from a 6500, but you should be able to get the idea):
ip vrf Cust1
rd 65000:1
ip vrf Cust2
rd 65000:2
interface FastEthernet0/0.100
encapsulation dot1Q 100
ip vrf forwarding Cust1
ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.252
interface FastEthernet0/0.200
encapsulation dot1Q 200
ip vrf forwarding Cust1
ip address 10.1.2.1 255.255.255.252
interface FastEthernet0/0.300
encapsulation dot1Q 300
ip vrf forwarding Cust2
ip address 10.20.1.1 255.255.255.252
interface FastEthernet0/0.333
encapsulation dot1Q 333
ip vrf forwarding Cust2
ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.252
!On a 6500 you could also have:
interface vlan 400
ip vrf forwarding Cust2
ip address 10.1.123.1 255.255.255.252
router rip
address-family ipv4 vrf Cust1
version 2
network 10.0.0.0
no auto-summary
exit-address-family
address-family ipv4 vrf Cust2
version 2
network 10.0.0.0
no auto-summary
exit-address-family
The separation in the control plane (routing etc.) is achieved through the normal VRF configuration. Overlapping IPs and such are supported by having separate IP routing tables per VRF and VRF aware routing protocols like RIP, OSPF, etc.
In the data plane traffic is sorted by layer2 encapsulation. In the example above, the dot1Q VLAN tag will deliver the same functionality as the MPLS VPN labels. If f.e. an IP packet with destination 10.1.1.1 arrives, the VLAN tag 100 or 333 will allow the VRF-lite CE to determine, whether it belongs to Cust1 or Cust2. The same differentation will take place for traffic from the CE to the PE. So the PE config is practically the same, BUT in addition MP-BGP and route-targets and MPLS towards the core is used.
So no MPLS is needed on the VRF-lite CE router, no labels will be used, hence VRF-lite.
The PE will not be the PHP LSR in the MPLS sense, because it is the LAST router in the MPLS network.
Instead of the FastEthernet also VLAN interfaces can be used. The number of interfaces per VRF or the number of VRFs are limited by memory.
Hope this helps! Please use the rating system.
Regards, Martin

MPLS / vrf-lite

Hi
We currently use a BT MPLS network and use BGP on our CE router to peer with the providers PE routers. Currently we only use one VPN for production across the MPLS network.
We are now looking to give access from some of our MPLS sites to a test environment housed in our data centre. We need to do this on a pc by pc basis.
At the moment the plan is to add a Test VPN within the MPLS network. All sites will be a member of the production VPN and those sites that also need access to test environment will be a member of the Test vpn.
This will segregate the traffic over the WAN but the issue i now have is how to segregate the traffic once it leaves the PE router. The link between the CE and PE router is just a layer 3 link so the VPN separation
has disappeared by now. I don't mind the traffic not being separated in terms of VPN's on the CE to PE link but i need to segregate the traffic once it leaves the CE router and enters our LAN.
So finally the questions
1) Is there a way to keep the separation at a VPN level on the CE -> PE link. As i say i don't mind not having it but if there is a way i would be interested.
2) More importantly i have done some limited reading on VRF-lite and was wondering before i go further if that would allow me to segregate the traffic internally within the LAN. Our Lan's in major buildings usually consist
of 4500 at the access-layer and 6500 as distribtion/core. What i would ideally like to do is ensure that only users within the site who need to access the test environment can ie. by adding a site to the TEST vpn this does
not mean that all users within the site should be able to get to it.
I could
i) Use PBR together with access-list and potentially firewalls
ii) use vrf-lite to segregate the traffic.
So is this a good application for vrf-lite or have i missed the point of it ?. if not can anyone suggest a better way ?
Many thanks
Jon

Joseph/Anantha
Thanks to both of you for your replies. If i could just query your expertise a little more.
Attached is a visio of a site that i would like to be able to access both the Test and Production VPN's. The key thing to note is that we are routing from the access-layer down to the distribution 6500 switches.
Now on the 4500 i can have 2 separate VRF's, one for the Prod VPN and one for the Test VPN. I can then assign different vlan interfaces into the relevant vrf.
Am i right in my assumptions so far ?
The problem i am having in taking this further is that a L3 interface can only be in one VRF and as the connections from the 4500 to the 6500 are L3 uplinks i can't allocate the L3 link into 2 separate vrf's (nor would it make sense to do so).
I am not in a position to change the L3 links to L2 links which would solve part of the problem as the vlan interfaces would then be on the 6500 and i could allocate these interfaces into separate VRF's.
So is there any way, bearing in mind that i need to keep L3 links from the access-layer, that i can segregate the routing tables on the 6500 and 7200 router.
If i can't do this then i don't see the advantage of trying to use VRF-lite because the 6500/7200 and 3800 will all have one routing table with both Test and Prod routes in in it and this means without route filtering these routes will get propogated by the 3800 to our remote sites.
If i have to revert to route-filtering i may as well not bother with vrf-lite ?
Jon

How many VRF-Lite Routing Instances can a 6509-E with a 720-Sup module run?

I know that in a 4500 style switch it supports a maximum of 64 VRF-lite routing instances. However what is the maximum amount of VRF-Lite routing instances can a 6509-E switch support with a Sup-720 sup module?

Sup 720 supports 1024 VRF Lites
see table-1 in this link:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/switches/catalyst-6500-series-switches/product_data_sheet09186a0080159856.html
HTH

VRF-Lite on existing VSS-Core ?

Hi Guys,
I need to exchange ideas, regarding a solution that I need to come up with.
First I will define the current setup has been done on our core network.
We have VSS 6500 cores swtiches as a primary core switches, and this vss cores are connected with server-farm switches and access layer switches as typical a campus network and then we also have about 20 or so, remote fibre connections connecting to our vss-core switches (i.e. connecting as trunks) to some remote access-switches used by third-parties from remote-locations to access resource at our organisation via the vss-cores.
Now our management want to tighten the belt and close security holes as much as possible.
For this solution I cannot use private-vlan to isolate remote-switche's traffic, as these connections are trunks, and there is no such a thing as private-trunks and so I abandon private-vlan notion.
Then I was thinking of introducing an ASA firewall, through which all remote-fibre access-switches must traverse via this ASA.
As you know, ASA cannot accommodate that many fiber ports and since this solution is a cleanup-job, (in a sense, I need to fix someone else mess, which was previously done). Beside our company do not wish to deploy a new Nexus switch (since Nexus become an expensive clean-up), just to connect those remote fiber connection to isolate from vss-core.
A last option I was thinking of, to introduce VRF-Lite on VSS-Cores, in a way which all truck ports from remote-switches will be part of a VRF instance along with an ASA’s outside interface which will be dot1q trunks as well for all given required internal vlans traverse via the outside to inside interface (possibly trunk as well), and this ASA’s inside interface will be part of the global routing instance same as on VSS-Core, so that remote-switches vlans will be monitored and will have restricted or control access.
Please share your thoughts and all inputs will be greatly appreciated and rated and please see a diagram attached.
Thanks in advance.
Rizwan Rafeek.

Hi Reza,
Thanks for your reply.
Well, remote users at remote-sites are not part of our organization and yet we are providing access to some resources, via our vss-core.
The security concerns is being that switches at remote-sites can be accessed by building management or anyone who has access to wiring-closets could connect a PC and be on our network and it is major privacy concern should anyone tap the wire to access private and confidential data.
We are liable for breach of privacy and last but not least is that remote-users become nuisance to our organization and how we manage and run our own business and how we manage our change-management activites and it become virtual impossible as they need access to our resources and our network-service personnel time and time again engaged in problem shooting those remote connections and application uses.
Early network team has not put much thoughts when establish connection to our network from remote-switches and it is my problem to find a solution to secure the connection and provide limited access as possible.
Thanks again for your reply.
Rizwan Rafeek.

VRF Lite running in the enterprise network

Hello everybody
Altough VRF lite (or Mulit VRF) seems to be a Service Provider Tecnology.
Does it make sense to use it in an Enterprise Network to isolate Networks from others ?
I cant find any design paper which describes if this would make sense.
What do you think. Is someone using it ? Does Cisco recommend it ?

Yes, VRF-lite SHOULD be used in an Enterprise environment to isolate the different security classes of devices.
In the past you would isolate different groups of users using Layer1, i.e. separate hubs either totally isolated or connected together by a router with ACLs. Since the PCs were only connected at shared 10 Mbit and the routers were such low performance and worms weren't really prevalent, this was not a big security issue at the time.
Then we migrated to VLANs, which essentially allowed Layer2 isolation within the same switch to provide the same functionality of separating different classes of users and to break up broadcast domains. Unfortunately, everyone connected the VLANs together at Layer3 with a router (or SVI) which essentially connected everything together again! And almost no one gets the ACLs right (if at all) to isolate the VLANs from each other. In fact, in most cases every VLAN can automatically reach every other VLAN from a Layer3 or IP perspective. This is a huge security problem.
Enter VRF-lite, essentially created by Cisco as their tag switching migrated to standards based MPLS and had a need to isolate Layer3 security domains from each other within the same switch (or router). Think of VLANs for routing tables. VRF stands for 'Virtual Route Forwarding', which basically means separate routing tables. Since VRF-lite is a per-switch feature (running locally to the switch) you will need to use other technologies to connect multiple VRF-lite switches together and keep the traffic isolated, see below.
What makes this so secure is that there is no command within the switch to connect different VRFs together within the same switch. You would need to connect a cable between two ports on the same switch configured in different VRFs to be able to communicate between them (recent IOS 12.2SR allows tunnels with different source VRFs but that is a corner case). The reason for this is simple, remember the basis for VRF (and VRF-lite) is for a service provider to isolate multiple customers from each other within the same switch. Just like an ATM, Frame-Relay, SONET, or Optical switch, the command line makes it very difficult (or impossible) to accidentally connect 2 different customers together.
Think about that. Even if someone was able to get ssh enable access to your switch (you aren't running telnet anymore, right?!), they CAN'T connect 2 VRFs together with any command.
And, yes, this is highly recommended by Cisco Engineers and is actually deployed far more than you think. I have VRF-lite running on at least 10 client's networks and those are LARGE networks. VRF-lite was integrated into the environment purely to solve a Layer3 security class isolation issue. I have used Layer3 dot1q trunks on c6500 switches and tunnels to keep isolated connectivity between VRFs between switches.
In Cisco speak, VRF-lite falls under the topic of 'Path Isolation' which is combined with other features that isolate traffic within the same network such as dot1q trunking, tunneling, VPN, policy-routing, and MPLS. Do a search on Cisco's web site for 'path isolation' and you will find a bunch of info.
See the following URLs for a good start:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns658/networking_solutions_design_guidances_list.html
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns658/netbr0900aecd804a17db.html
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns658/networking_solutions_white_paper0900aecd804a17c9.shtml
As always, rate all posts appropriately, particularly those that provide value and don't be shy about following up with additional questions or comments.
Good luck!

Dial-In access to VRF Lite (MPLS VPN)

Hi,
I'm trying to implement a solution, that gives opportunity to dial-in to some specific customers VPN (VRF Lite)
Configuration of NAS is done using cisco.com guide and seems OK. NAS is using RADIUS to authenticate users, and if authenticated, RADIUS sends a specific users virtual-profile configuration to NAS. So far everything seems OK. I can dial-in, succesfuly authenticate against RADIUS and download the virtual-profile configration (DEBUG is pasted below).
BUT, even there is a command "virtual-profile aaa", and RADIUS sends all info, Virtual-Access interface isn't created or it is created without any configuration.
Maybe this is happening because I'm using dialer-profile ? Some cisco documentation says that if there are dialer-profiles configured, virtual-profile configuration cann't be downloaded from AAA ???
Here is debug, You can see RADIUS to NAS communication:
Aug 24 07:59:59: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Serial2/0:26, changed state to up
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS(000000A1): Storing nasport 20026 in rad_db
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS(000000A1): Config NAS IP: 0.0.0.0
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS/ENCODE(000000A1): acct_session_id: 247
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS(000000A1): sending
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS/ENCODE: Best Local IP-Address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx for Radius-Server xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS(000000A1): Send Access-Request to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:1645 id 21646/40, len 113
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: authenticator C9 98 61 51 0F FF 0F C8 - FA A2 3E C1 5E 80 13 0E
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: Framed-Protocol [7] 6 PPP [1]
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: User-Name [1] 6 "vrft"
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: CHAP-Password [3] 19 *
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: Vendor, Cisco [26] 20
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: cisco-nas-port [2] 14 "Serial2/0:26"
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: NAS-Port [5] 6 20026
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: NAS-Port-Type [61] 6 ISDN [2]
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: Calling-Station-Id [31] 9 "xxxxxxx"
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: Called-Station-Id [30] 9 "xxxxxxx"
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: Service-Type [6] 6 Framed [2]
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: NAS-IP-Address [4] 6 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: Received from id 21646/40 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:1645, Access-Accept, len 277
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: authenticator 8D E7 52 2A 4B 72 88 9E - B8 85 38 CF 70 4A B7 79
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: Service-Type [6] 6 Framed [2]
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: Framed-Protocol [7] 6 PPP [1]
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: Framed-IP-Address [8] 6 10.10.8.5
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: Framed-IP-Netmask [9] 6 255.255.255.240
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: Framed-Compression [13] 6 VJ TCP/IP Header Compressi[1]
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: Vendor, Cisco [26] 54
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: Cisco AVpair [1] 48 "lcp:interface-config#1= ip vrf forwarding test"
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: Vendor, Cisco [26] 68
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: Cisco AVpair [1] 62 "lcp:interface-config#2= ip address 10.10.8.1 255.255.255.240"
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: Vendor, Cisco [26] 50
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: Cisco AVpair [1] 44 "lcp:interface-config#3= description horray"
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: Vendor, Cisco [26] 49
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: Cisco AVpair [1] 43 "lcp:interface-config#4= encapsulation ppp"
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS: Framed-Routing [10] 6 0
Aug 24 08:00:00: RADIUS(000000A1): Received from id 21646/40
Aug 24 08:00:00: %ISDN-6-CONNECT: Interface Serial2/0:26 is now connected to xxxxxxx vrft
Aug 24 08:00:00: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Serial2/0:26, changed state to down
Please let me know if any other information is required.

Besides, as I see, virtual-access interface's description is as configured on RADIUS, but all other configuration is from virtual-template. Why? Even if there are no overlapping configuration strings in Vtemplate and on AAA (like ip address etc), configuration string received from RADIUS isn't getting added to virtual-access interface configuration.

AAA Authentication and VRF-Lite

Hi!
I've run into a strange problem, when using AAA Radius authentication and VRF-Lite.
The setting is as follows. A /31 linknet is setup between PE and CE (7206/g1 and C1812), where PE sub-if is a part of an MPLS VPN, and CE uses VRF-Lite to keep the local services seperated (where more than one VPN is used..).
Access to the CE, via telnet, console etc, will be authenticated by our RADIUS servers, based on the following setup:
--> Config Begins <---
aaa new-model
aa group server radius radius-auth
server x.x.4.23 auth-port 1645 acct-port 1646
server x.x.7.139 auth-port 1645 acct-port 1646
aaa authentication login default group radius-auth local
aaa authentication enable default group radius-auth enable
radius-server host x.x.4.23 auth-port 1645 acct-port 1646 key <key>
radius-server host x.x.7.139 auth-port 1645 acct-port 1646 key <key>
ip radius source-interface <outside-if> vrf 10
---> Config Ends <---
The VRF-Lite instance is configured like this:
---> Config Begins <---
ip vrf 10
rd 65001:10
---> Config Ends <---
Now - if I remove the VRF-Lite setup, and use global routing on the CE (which is okey for a single-vpn setup), the AAA/RADIUS authentication works just fine. When I enable "ip vrf forwarding 10" on the outside and inside interface, the AAA/RADIUS service is unable to reach the two defined servers.
I compared the routing table when using VRF-Lite and global routing, and they are identical. All routes are imported via BGP correctly, and the service as a whole works without problems, in other words, the AAA/RADIUS part is the only service not working.

Just wanted to help future people as some of the answers I found here were confusing.
This is all you need from the AAA perspective:
aaa new-model
aaa group server radius RADIUS-VRF-X
server-private 192.168.1.10 auth-port 1812 acct-port 1813 key 7 003632222D6E3839240475
ip vrf forwarding X
aaa authentication login default group RADIUS-VRF-X local
aaa authorization exec default group X local if-authenticated
Per VRF AAA reference:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/12_2/12_2b/12_2b4/feature/guide/12b_perv.html#wp1024168

Native Multi-VRF-Lite Design with EIGRP Question

Hello,
we think about to implement a VRF-Lite design (no MPLS and MBGP) in our campus network (10,000 ports, 20x 6500Sup720, 400x L2-Switches). MPLS is from our point of view oversized for our requirements. We need only a segmentation from different departments. Our IGP is eigrp.
In the latest IOS-Release for the cat6500 (12.2.18SXD) is finally a VRF-Lite support for EIGRP inside.
We could test successful a design with different VRFs in our lab, the division workes fine. But we didn't found a way to implement shared service. These are in our case DHCP, DNS, InternerAccess and some others. We thought about a redistribution between our global EIGRP routing table and the EIGRP-vrf tables, but we didn't found a way to do this.
How can we do this?
Thanks

Use a crossover cable to connect a port belonging to the global routing table to a port belonging to a VRF. This way you can leak EIGRP routes from the global routing table into the VRF (through that physical connection). The drawback is that you use 2 ports (that could instead be used for other things...).
Another way to this, would be to use static routing; use ip route vrf VRF x.x.x.x m.m.m.m n.n.n.n global to allow traffic to go from the VRF into the global routing table.
Hope that helps...

Using VRF-Lite in 6509 as Really Expensive IPS ByPass

I have an IPS (Intrustion Prevention) unit that is causing me some problems with some of my servers in my ServerFarm. I would like to route most of my to/from ServerFarm traffic through the IPS, but use some policy-based routing with an ACL (preferably, a policy-based ACL) to allow some servers to bypass the IPS.
So, I thought of taking my Cisco 6509 and making it into a Really Expensive Optical ByPass switch for this small group of servers. The challenge is that the IPS runs strictly at Layer 2. So if I connect the IPS in a loop to the 6509, I must change the MAC addresses on these interfaces on the 6509 so that each address is unique -- as well as assign unique IPs to each of the two interfaces, but the addresses must share the same L3 subnet. Of course, this leads to overlapping addresses on the 6509, which it does not like. So, I want to see if I can try a little VRF-lite to remove the overlapping address problem.
To accomplish the bypass segment, I take a piece of fiber and just connect two ports together on the 6509, changing the MAC addresses and assigning the "overlapping" IPs (which is "solved" by placing the different ports in different VRFs, on just one port in the Global table and the other port in a standalone VRF). If I can do this without running this piece of fiber, I'd be welcome to the idea.
I can fire up OSPF on all of my interfaces, raising the cost of the IPS Bypass link, and use the route-maps to try to route the Bypass traffic correctly. Unfortunately, the route-maps are not behaving. The traffic moves across the two links (one with IPS, one without) assymetrically, which isn't what I want.
I am uploading a diagram that will show a simplified example of what I am doing. Here is my config below. Does anyone have any ideas on what I am doing wrong, or a better way to do this? (I tried a VACL approach, but I could not redirect the traffic properly):
ip vrf Srv
description ServerNets
rd 65000:10
object-group ip address IPS-Ignore
host 192.168.20.2
interface GigabitEthernet1/3
ip address 192.168.200.1 255.255.255.0
ip policy route-map ServerNetIngress
interface GigabitEthernet1/9
description ServerNets
no ip address
ip flow ingress
interface GigabitEthernet1/9.20
description PublicServerNet
encapsulation dot1Q 20
ip vrf forwarding Srv
ip address 192.168.20.1 255.255.255.128
ip flow ingress
ip policy route-map ServerNetEgress
interface GigabitEthernet1/15
description IPS-ByPass-Global
mac-address 0015.c7c9.c10f
ip address 192.168.15.73 255.255.255.252
ip flow ingress
ip ospf cost 100
interface GigabitEthernet1/17
description IPS-ByPass-Srv-VRF
mac-address 0015.c7c9.c111
ip vrf forwarding Srv
ip address 192.168.15.74 255.255.255.252
ip flow ingress
ip ospf cost 100
interface GigabitEthernet1/19
description IPS-Scrub-Global
mac-address 0015.c7c9.c113
ip address 10.0.0.2 255.255.255.252
ip flow ingress
interface GigabitEthernet1/21
description IPS-Scrub-Srv-VRF
mac-address 0015.c7c9.c115
ip vrf forwarding Srv
ip address 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.252
ip flow ingress
router ospf 10 vrf Srv
router-id 192.168.10.1
log-adjacency-changes
capability vrf-lite
network 192.168.0.0 0.0.255.255 area 0
router ospf 1
router-id 192.168.0.1
log-adjacency-changes
network 192.168.0.0 0.0.255.255 area 0
ip access-list extended IPS-Bypass
permit ip addrgroup IPS-Ignore any
permit ip any addrgroup IPS-Ignore
route-map ServerNetIngress permit 100
description ByPassIPS
match ip address IPS-Bypass
set global
set ip next-hop 192.168.15.74 10.0.0.1
route-map ServerNetEgress permit 100
description ByPassIPS
match ip address IPS-Bypass
set ip vrf Srv next-hop 192.168.15.73 10.0.0.2
I obfuscated my addresses, so don't let that throw you off too much.
Clarke Morledge
College of William and Mary

Thank you for the suggestion. Just using the "set ip next-hop" in the respective route-map is sufficient and gets the job done. Unfortunately, my problem is more with how the policy-based ACLs (PBACLs) work; i.e. the lines with the object-group syntax in the config. My contact with the TAC tells me that PBACLs are not really supported to do policy-based routing. So because the PBACL is not working correctly all of the time, things don't get matched properly in the route-map for the policy-based route to get correctly applied.
This is really too bad since the PBACL looks to be a quite handy feature. In my example -- at least in theory -- I should be able to make but one change to the "object-group" in order to properly handle the policy-based routing involving the two different route-maps. Alas, this is not as easy as I hoped for since making changes to the PBACL apparently produces unpredictable results -- and the TAC just tells me that the feature is not supported for what I want to do.

Vrf-lite (extranet solution)

Hi,
I have a requirement of an extranet solution (ASP model) where many customer will be connected to a central site. The spoke sites do not talk to each other, not even through the central site. One option is to use 1 VRF at the central site and import routes from all other spokes sites (different RD and RT at the spopke sites). This has been rules out. so now my other alternative is to use multiple vrf on a single access link (ethernet in this case) between the CE and PE. I was thinking of using vrf-lite at the central site, but few concepts I am not clear about.
1) can i get away without using vrf-lite on the central site. PE configures individual vrf for each 1.q interface, but CE just uses 1.q without any vrf. For start I am going to have only two/three sites, so I can either map the subinterface to a separate LAN port or i could do .1q on a single LAN int and map it to the WAN subinterface. Maybe this is not the best solution,but I do not want to go for an unnecessary solution.
2) what are the advantages and disadvantages of using vrf-lite vs no vrf (if it is possible) in this scenario.
Attached is a diagram.
thanks,
Arana

Jon,
I am back with some reading on vrf lite. I am pasting a sample configure that I picked up from another post. I noticed that there is no 'network' statement or 'redistribute static'. My questions:
1) If I am running BGP with PE, what is the normal pratice to advertise my routers per vrf?
2) In the LAN do I run separate OSPF or EIGRP instances per VRF (per subinterface)? what is the best way?
3) If I have static route to other LAN routers then I will be using 'redistribute static' right? Do I have to be specific about which static route I should redistribute to that vrf. If not how does the router know which static route to redistribute to which vrf.
I have attached a diagram. The below sample does not map to my diagram.
frame-relay switching
interface serial0/0/0
encapsulation frame-relay
interface serial0/0/0.1 point-to-point
ip vrf forwarding A
ip address x.x.x.x x.x.x.x
frame-relay interface-dlci 100
interface serial0/0/0
encapsulation frame-relay
interface serial0/0/0.2 point-to-point
ip vrf forwarding B
ip address y.y.y.y y.y.y.y
frame-relay interface-dlci 101
And So on for further interfaces.
router bgp 1
no synchronization
bgp log-neighbor-changes
no auto-summary
address-family ipv4 vrf A
neighbor x.x.x.x remote-as x
no synchronization
exit-address-family
address-family ipv4 vrf B
neighbor y.y.y.y remote-as y
no synchronization
exit-address-family
Vikram,
As long as we all can share/learn/solve problems, it is perfectly fine. I don't think I qualify to give you any advise but here is what I have found in another post that might be of interest to you.
In your post you mentioned that you do not think you can run MP-BGP between the two switch through the FW. In another post I had got an indication that you can run LDP between two PE's using GRE tunnel. In your scenario you are going throuhg a FW and in that particular post the PEs are separated by a third service provider. So if you are open to explore this might be a solution for you.
Hope this piece of information helps.
thanks,
Arana

VRF-Lite on one 6509; How to route traffic from global to VRF.

To anyone that can lead me in the right direction:
I have a 6509 switch with IOS " s3223-adventerprise_wan-mz.122-33.SXJ2.bin" on it. I am running VRF-lite on it and would like to route some subnets from the global route table to the VRF route table. How can I do this and stay on the same physical switch. I am using EIGRP for the global network and route table and static routing within the the VRF. Any suggestions or recommendations? Thanks in advance for your help in this matter...

Hello,
You need to use (Static route) in both directions, One Static in the VRF table points to the Global interface, and another one in the Global point to the VRF interface for the recieved traffic. After that, you Can Redistribute the Global Static route into Eigrp for end-to-end connectivity!
Example:
Consider you have 2 interfaces in your Core SW-6509: One is G0/1 and the other is G0/2
G0/1 is placed into the Global table , and G0/2 is part of VRF (X)
interface G0/1
IP address 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
inteface G0/2
ip vrf forwarding X
ip address 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.0
Consider Subnet Y.Y.Y.Y in the Global and you want to have it accessible from the VRF!
configure this: (ip route vrf X y.y.y.y y.y.y.y.y G0/1 Global)
Configure also this for the return traffic from the Global table: (ip route 2.2.2.2 z.z.z.z G0/2)
You Can then redistribute the Global static into the Eigrp as below:
router Eigrp 1
no auto summary
redistribute static metric 1.1.1.1.1
HTH
Mohamed

What is VRF-Lite

Can anyone explain what is the difference between VRF and VRF Lite. What is the main purpose/application of VRF Lite?
Thanks in advance
AK

Vrf-lite is a leaner cut down version of MPLS-VRF.
Where in MPLS-VRF you need labels for VPN traffic switching, you dont need labels in VRF-lite.
VRF-lite mainly relies on routing using multiple virtual routing instances created for each vrf for switching traffic. There is no label switching for VRF-lite.
Since there is no label switching, you need to populate VRF's on every hop on your network. For example |Lan--PE1---PE2---PE3--Lan|
PE1 has 2 vrf's connected to a local lan, to route these VRF's to the other end(PE3), you will need to have dedicated interfaces(or subinterfaces on each hop and enable routing instances for each VRF on each hop.
But with MPLS-VRF you need to just enable the VRF's on PE1 and PE3 with MPBGP and Label Switching enabled.
So the advantage of VRF-Lite is to have virtualization of your sub-networks a smaller scale. If you have a big network, you may very well consider implementing MPLS (even though you may be an enterprise).
HTH-Cheers,
Swaroop

Need help on VRF lite

I have implement VRF lite feature for one of the customer...it's working fine..But i m not so clear of following command ...........Can any one explane the same.
router ospf 511 vrf abc
capability vrf-lite <--------What is use of this command..is this is reletaed to BGP to OSPF redistribution..?

Hi,
VRF lite converts the router into multiple virtual routers each one with its separated routing table, interfaces and routing protocols.
The OSPF Support for Multi-VRF on CE Routers feature provides the capability of suppressing provider edge (PE) checks that are needed to prevent loops when the PE is performing a mutual redistribution of packets between the OSPF and BGP protocols. When VPN routing and forward (VRF) is used on a router that is not a PE (that is, one that is not running BGP), the checks can be turned off to allow for correct population of the VRF routing table with routes to IP prefixes.
When the OSPF process is associated with the VRF, several checks are performed when link-state advertisements (LSAs) are received. PE checks are needed to prevent loops when the PE is performing a mutual redistribution between OSPF and BGP interfaces. In some situations, performing PE checks might not be desirable. The concept of VRFs can be used on a router that is not a PE router (that is, a router that is not running BGP). With the capability vrf-lite command, the checks can be turned off to allow correct population of the VRF routing table with routes to IP prefixes.
This command suppresses the Provider Edge (PE) specific checks on a router when the OSPF process is associated with the VRF.
HTH, please do rate all helpful posts,
Mohammed Mahmoud.

PBR / VRF-lite / 6500 SUP720-10G-3C

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for