WAAS in VRF\MPLS Environment

Hi,
I need to deploy waas WAE7371 in VRF/MPLS environment. I have 2 sites, each one have 6500 router as a CE\PE with multiple vrf. the wan interface is mpls enabled.
i need to deploy the WAE-7371 in only one VRF, let say VRF netapp which is bounded to interface vlan x. i will create another L3 interface vlan with defferent subnet and bound it to vrf netapp (for the WAE).
because wccp protocol is not vrf\mpls aware, can i configure IP wccp 61 redirect in & IP wccp 62 redirect out on the interface vlan x and get the same results?
attached diagram for the deployment.
thanks,

Avi,
Outbound redirection is not recommended on the Catalyst 6500 platform, since a portion of the processing occurs in software.
Is it possible to deploy the WAEs physically inline (requires the inline module) between the L2 switches and CE/PE switches?
Regards,
Zach

Similar Messages

WAAS in VRF Environment

Hi,
I need to deploy waas WAE7371 in vrf environment. I have 2 sites, each one have 6500 router as a CE\PE with multiple vrf. the wan interface is mpls enabled.
i need to deploy the WAE-7371 in only one VRF, let say VRF netapp which is bounded to interface vlan x. interface vlan x has ip address which act as the default GW of my netapp machines.
because wccp protocol is not vrf\mpls aware, can i configure IP wccp 61 redirect in & IP wccp 62 redirect out on the same interface vlan x and get the same results?
thanks,

Wow, cant believe noone answered this for two years!
I´m having the similar WAAS deployment, check this link out:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/contnetw/ps5680/ps6870/white_paper_C11-560131.pdf

Seamless migration of cryptomap ipsec setup to vrf aware environment?

hi out there
We are in a migration phase from a vpn router with a non-vrf aware setup to a router with a vrf aware setup. I expected that I was able to do this more or less seamless by adding the wan-interface from the vrf ware router to the same hsrp Group as the non-vrf aware router and the just raise the priority of the vrf aware router when we had a time slot for migrating the environment. But when I added the interface for the vrf aware router to the hsrp Group of the non-vrf aware router the vrf-aware router suddenly started to "mal-function" - it had two other interfaces running with vpn connections and those sessions started to crash.
Since this is a production env I hadn't time to debug what happened but I just quickly rolled-back what I had done and everything looked ok and stable Again. But - can some here give me a guess of what had happened?
the setup I had on the non-vrf aware router was this:
interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0
ip address 19.41.10.13 255.255.255.128
standby 68 ip 19.41.10.14
standby 68 priority 110
standby 68 preempt
standby 68 authentication xxxx
standby 68 name asp
crypto map cm-cvn001 redundancy asp
and on the vrf aware env:
interface GigabitEthernet0/0/3
ip address 19.41.10.28 255.255.255.128
vrf forwarding INTERNET3
standby 68 ip 19.41.10.14
standby 68 priority 50
standby 68 preempt
standby 68 authentication xxxx
standby 68 name asp
crypto map IPSECMAP3 redundancy asp

Hi JouniForss
Thanks for replying!
Looks like I left in some public IP's by mistake.
I have edited this to hopefully make it clear.

CUCM: Call Admission Control (CAC) in MPLS environment

Hello,
could anybody help me in setup location based CAC in CUCM 9.1.
I have read already some ducumentaion, but it's not entirely clear to me.
The statement in these documetaion is: ".. assign the apropriate bandwith to the locations ...".
But as far as I know I can assign the bandwidth only to pairs of locations. I guess it's not the idea to put the bandwidth from each location to all the other locations...
So, should I put the bandwith from each location to the hub_none location?
Which devices do I have to put then into the hub_location?
How does it work when a phone in one location calls another phone in another location?
What about the HQ devices?
I have a centralized environment: one CUCM cluster (and phones + central gateways) in the HQ and 12 sites (with phones and local gateways) all connected via MPLS cloud.
Thanks for any comment.

I'd recommend you to read the SRND before further questions, it's all explained in there.
Simpy put, consider hub_none your HQ, you can change the same, then configure a location for each remote site with the BW they can use.
It'll be a hub and spoke, BW will be deducted from the link from X site to hub_none, and from hub_none to site Y to account for the call.
Again, SRND covers this very nicely.

Waas inline in L2 environment

Hi,
A new WAAS installation is planed. The customer has 3 sites with one WAAS on each. On each site, there is no core layer. The L3 device is the ISP router. So, the WAAS will be plugged via inline interfaces between the ISP router and a switch. The WAAS will received all L2 broadcast from the LAN. There is no L3 point-to-point dedicated network between the router and the switch.
Is this scenario could be an issue ?
Rgds.

Wow, cant believe noone answered this for two years!
I´m having the similar WAAS deployment, check this link out:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/contnetw/ps5680/ps6870/white_paper_C11-560131.pdf

Not all Prefixes in VRF Tables are Reachable?

Hello,
During my studies with an MPLS VPN [MP-BGP] lab I found something unexpected. I wonder if I am mistaken in my comprehension or if this normal:
Not all prefixes in a VRF Table are pingable/reachable ?
Seems that in the standard routing tables, if a prefix is there, then it is pingable/reachable.
I've attached a sketch to help illustrate the lab I have set up and what I found.
Below is output from ABR2 in the lab showing inability to ping 154.0.0.154, even though it is in the VRF IT table. After "mpls ip" is configured on the "*" interface of Core2 the LDP Adjacency between Core2 and ABR2 comes up and ABR2 can ping everything in the VRF IT table, including 154.0.0.154
Just seems like this is a "Gotcha" for one just coming into the world of MPLS VPN. Just because a Prefix is in the VRF Table does not mean it is reachable?
Thanks for any input.

Hello Greg,
Behavior which you have experienced is completly normal in MPLS environment. There is big difference between forwarding IP packets and MPLS frames.
If you disable "mpls ip" on some interface along your LSP, LSP is broken and traffic is lost. MPLS VPN packets have two labels:
- IGP label - according this label, packet is forwarded from ingress PE to egress PE
- VPN label - based on this label, egress PE can put packet to particular VRF
VPN label is known only to ingress and egress PE, if LSP is broken, IGP label is stripped off in the middle of the LSP and packet is forwarded based on VPN label. But as I said, intermediate routers do not know what to do with this packet, because label is unknow to them so packet is discarded.
I hope this cleared some things for you.
To further studies I would recommend this book:
http://www.ciscopress.com/store/mpls-fundamentals-9781587051975
Best Regards
Please rate all helpful posts and close solved questions

MPLS - How are external/internal routes distinguished?

Hi all
I was setting up an MPLS environment and wanted to get some more information about how MPLS VPN's work. Basically I have three sites connected to the MPLS cloud. Site A runs EIGRP on the customer side and Site B runs OSPF on the customer side. Site C is the one in question. The way I have it designed, Sites A and C have full visability into one another and sites B and C have full visibility into one another. When I configure site C with eigrp, all proper routes are seen, but the OSPF routes from site B are seen as EIGRP external routes. When I switch site C to OSPF, EIGRP routes from site A are seen as OSPF External type 2 routes. I guess my ultimate question is, How does the PE router at site C know the originating protocol? All the routes it receives are from BGP. Does a certain attribute carry this? If so, is this feature specific to Cisco gear or an RFC standard? Thanks in advance for all your help. I can include configs if that would help, below I'll show you my RD and RT's for each VRF and the routing tables of the CE router at Site C before and after the change.
Site A
ip vrf a
rd 1:111
route-target export 1:100
route-target import 1:101
Site B
ip vrf c
rd 3:333
route-target export 3:301
route-target import 1:101
Site C
ip vrf a
rd 1:111
route-target export 1:101
route-target import 1:100
route-target import 3:301
Change from EIGRP to OSPF
Gateway of last resort is not set
     6.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
D       6.6.6.6 [90/435200] via 10.2.1.1, 00:05:26, Ethernet0/0
     7.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C       7.7.7.7 is directly connected, Loopback1
     8.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
D EX    8.8.8.8 [170/2560025856] via 10.2.1.1, 00:02:13, Ethernet0/0
D EX 111.0.0.0/8 [170/2560025856] via 10.2.1.1, 00:02:13, Ethernet0/0
     10.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 4 subnets, 2 masks
C       10.2.1.0/24 is directly connected, Ethernet0/0
D       10.1.1.0/24 [90/307200] via 10.2.1.1, 00:05:56, Ethernet0/0
D       10.20.0.0/16 [90/435200] via 10.2.1.1, 00:05:56, Ethernet0/0
C       10.77.0.0/16 is directly connected, Loopback2
D EX 192.168.1.0/24 [170/2560025856] via 10.2.1.1, 00:02:43, Ethernet0/0
R7(config)#no router eigrp 22
*Mar 1 02:10:20.747: %DUAL-5-NBRCHANGE: IP-EIGRP(0) 22: Neighbor 10.2.1.1 (Ethernet0/0) is
down: interface down
R7(config)#router ospf 3
R7(config-router)#network 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 area 0
R7(config-router)#network 7.7.7.7 0.255.255.255 area 0
R7(config-router)#end
R7#show ip route
Codes: C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
       D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area
       N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2
       E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2
       i - IS-IS, su - IS-IS summary, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2
       ia - IS-IS inter area, * - candidate default, U - per-user static route
       o - ODR, P - periodic downloaded static route
Gateway of last resort is not set
     6.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
O E2    6.6.6.6 [110/409600] via 10.2.1.1, 00:00:27, Ethernet0/0
     7.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C       7.7.7.7 is directly connected, Loopback1
     8.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
O IA    8.8.8.8 [110/21] via 10.2.1.1, 00:00:27, Ethernet0/0
O IA 111.0.0.0/8 [110/21] via 10.2.1.1, 00:00:27, Ethernet0/0
     10.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 4 subnets, 2 masks
C       10.2.1.0/24 is directly connected, Ethernet0/0
O E2    10.1.1.0/24 [110/1] via 10.2.1.1, 00:00:26, Ethernet0/0
O E2    10.20.0.0/16 [110/409600] via 10.2.1.1, 00:00:26, Ethernet0/0
C       10.77.0.0/16 is directly connected, Loopback2
O IA 192.168.1.0/24 [110/11] via 10.2.1.1, 00:00:26, Ethernet0/0
R7#trace 6.6.6.6
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 6.6.6.6
1 10.2.1.1 652 msec 396 msec 192 msec
2 40.1.1.9 [MPLS: Labels 18/24 Exp 0] 2264 msec 2640 msec 2532 msec
3 30.1.1.3 [MPLS: Labels 18/24 Exp 0] 2320 msec * *
4 10.1.1.1 [MPLS: Label 24 Exp 0] 1816 msec 1792 msec 2148 msec
5 10.1.1.2 1940 msec * 2200 msec
R7#

Hello Edward,
I see nothing strange in the results you have posted. They are completely natural to the process of carrying customer routes over MPLS L3 VPN.
You know yourself that the customer routes are carried between PE routers using BGP, and from PE towards CE, these routes are redistributed from BGP into the particular routing protocol running between PE and CE. Each of these routing protocols automatically marks redistributed networks as external networks. For OSPF, this is a normal part of the open protocol specification - that routes injected into OSPF via redistribution shall be represented as external routes (and carried in LSA-5). Similarly, when you redistribute into EIGRP from a different routing protocol, these routes will be carried by EIGRP as external networks. So what you see here is natural and normal. Even if all sites ran the same routing protocol (EIGRP or OSPF), one site would see networks from other sites as external routes.
In fact, there are extensions to BGP using extended community attributes that try to preserve the original nature of the redistributed routes. The prerequisite is that all sites run the same IGP, either OSPF or EIGRP. In that case, EIGRP routes carried over MPLS can be made look like internal routes although they are redistributed, and OSPF will make the routes appear as inter-area routes, not as external routes. There is even a modification to OSPF allowing you to see other sites as intra-area routes (though this requires configuring so-called OSPF sham links between PEs). All of this is done because an internal network is always preferred to an external network. This causes trouble if there is a backup link directly interconnecting two sites, bypassing the MPLS cloud. As the routing protocol run over this link advertises all networks as internal, this link would always be preferred to the MPLS VPN which is exactly the opposite of what you want to do.
Please feel welcome to ask further!
Best regards,
Peter

WAAS in serial clustering overload issue

Hi I have a customer that we converted for a WCCP
load balancing scenario to a inline serial clustering scenaio due to the m
igration to a vrf aware environment. The customer's network is being converted to vrf's and vrf's and WCCP
dont play nice so we had to go inline. So right now the first WAE is
connected to both swiches the switches run HSRP. The L0 and L1
of the first wae go to the switches, W0 W1 of the first WAE got to L0 L1 of the second WAE and W0 W1 go to the routers. This has been working fine, however the customer complained that on friday all traffic stopped and they had to power off the wae's to retore connectivity. Right now they are off so I can look at any of the syslogs, but the customer was saying they got a lot of overload syslog errors. These are 67'4 with 8Gb ram.
Zach in your book, you state that serial clustering wont provide "load balancing", however when the first WAE becomes overloaded, the other WAE will optimize new connections. What happens to the traffic on the first one, because it appears that it stops forwarding or significantly slows traffic. This design was based on these references in the book so I need to know if this still works the same in 4.1 code. We are on the latest greatest code. I will open a TAC next week as they are currently powered off and I cannot pull the serial or logs right now. One thing curious though is that I was able to get the CPU stats for these boxes from the Central manager and the CPU hasnt gone over 10% all last week. I would think if in overload they would be at a significantly more than that.

In the serial inline clustering case, when the first WAAS device in the cluster (relative to the client) reaches the maximum number of optimized connections, they will spill over to the second WAAS device inthe cluster, which can optimize them.
Opening a TAC case is the right next step. We're going to need system reports from the devices, so you'll have to power them back on. If you're concerned about disrupting traffic again, you can power the WAAS devices back on, but shutdown the inline groups. This will cause the devices to go into bypass operating mode.
Regards,
Zach

WCCP inside VRF

Hi Team,
I have one issue with WCCP redirection inside VRF. Here is my scenario:
PE router config (MPLS edge)
ip vrf aaa
rd 10:1
route-target both 10:1
int facing CE router
ip vrf forwarding aaa
ip address x.x.x.x x.x.x.x
mpls bgp forwarding
router bgp 10
<classic MP-BGP config>
address-family vpnv4 vrf aaa
neighbor <CE router> remote-as 100
neighbor <CE router> activate
neighbor <CE router> send-label
CE router (using VRF lite)
ip vrf aaa
rd 100:1
route-target both 100:1
ip wccp vrf aaa 61
ip wccp vrf aaa 62
int facing PE router
ip vrf forwarding aaa
ip address c.c.c.c c.c.c.c
ip wccp vrf aaa 62 redirect in
ip bgp mpls forwarding
int facing WAAS
ip vrf forwarding aaa
ip address w.w.w.w w.w.w.w
int LAN
ip vrf forwarding aaa
ip address l.l.l.l l.l.l.l
ip wccp vrf aaa 61 redirect in
router bgp 100
address-family vpnv4 vrf aaa
neighbor <PE router> remote-as 10
neighbor <PE router> activate
neighbor <PE router> send-label
<classic network advertising>
WAE config is classis WCCP with hash assignment and negotiated GRE return method. CE router does not have any issues detecting WAE appliance.
Now the mentioned issue:
Traffic from LAN to PE is being redirected OK. No issues here. But return traffic from PE router is not redirected to WAE appliance despite the fact that WCCP "redirect in" command is configured under CE WAN interface. When I remove "neighbor <CE router> send-label" command under "
address-family vpnv4 vrf aaa" on PE router, CE router starts to redirect traffic from PE to WAE appliance (but I loose label information on CE). When I configure this command back, redirection stops.
So my question is why this command is causing CE router not to redirect traffic from PE to LAN on its WAN interface? I was not able to find any restrictions regarding VRF lite and WCCP. I am using 15.2(3)T1 IOS version.
Many thanks for any inputs.
Regards,
Stan

hi Stan,
I´m not really into VRF troubleshooting but you should check this info;
If a Cisco WAAS NME-WAE network module or Cisco WAE appliance is used at a branch location and the service provider cannot strip off the labels, WCCP can be used with a route-leaking option as long as there are no overlapping IP addresses. ( that sounds like your design)
look for WCCP Deployment
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/contnetw/ps5680/ps6870/white_paper_C11-560131.pdf
good luck!

How many VRFs support a SUP7E

Hello,
I have a customer that wants to change his CORE devices, he is concerned about the VRFs instances that he can configure, I know that in the SUP2T from the 6500 supports 8,192 VRFs:
MPLS in hardware to enable use of Layer 3 VPNs and EoMPLS tunneling. Up to 8192 VRFs with a total of up to 256K* forwarding entries per system.
According to the next link:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/interfaces-modules/catalyst-6500-series-supervisor-engine-2t/data_sheet_c78-648214.html
I want to make a comparison between a 6500 with SUP2T and a 4500 with sUP7E but I can't find anything about the VRFs instances in the SUP7E.
Could anyone please help me answering that question???
Thanks a lot

This is the problem. The customer has 2 4507 with SUP-V I think and he want to upgrade. He asked me about one 6509 with SUP2T but I suggested to upgrade to 4507R+E with SUP7E and VSS, I think that the budget of the customer is low...
He needs at least 4 modules of 48 ports so he can receive all their customers. Regarding SUP7 vs SUP8 the main difference is that the SUP8 supports WLC in the module, and has more switching capacity (928 Gbps vs 848 Gbps of the SUP7).
Thanks again
Let me send a copy of the configuration:
CORE-SWITCH#show run
Building configuration...
Current configuration : 77236 bytes
version 12.2
no service pad
service timestamps debug uptime
service timestamps log uptime
service password-encryption
service compress-config
hostname CORE-SWITCH
boot-start-marker
boot system flash bootflash:cat4500-entservicesk9-mz.122-31.SGA9.bin
boot-end-marker
ip vrf TMX1
ip vrf TMX2
ip vrf TMX3
ip vrf TMX4
interface Vlan51
description TMX1
ip vrf forwarding TMX1
ip address 192.168.150.65 255.255.255.240
interface Vlan52
description TMX2
ip vrf forwarding TMX2
ip address 192.168.150.113 255.255.255.240
As you can see the configuration is so simple, I copy only the VRF side so you can see the VRF configuration that he is doing, as far as I know this is VRF-LITE, BTW he has a lot of static routing with VRFs

SXH + MPLS + EBGP

Hi!
My company has Cisco 6506 with SUP720-3BXL.
I'm trying to kill two birds with one stone
2 BGP Full View + MPLS VPN in one box.
I have a problem with more than 250k labels in LFIB.
Seems it creates a new label for each prefix recived from BGP.
How it can be turned off ?
IOS 12.2 SXH adv ent services.
L3 Forwarding Resources
FIB TCAM usage: Total Used %Used
72 bits (IPv4, MPLS, EoM) 524288 459356 88%
144 bits (IP mcast, IPv6) 262144 7 1%
detail: Protocol Used %Used
IPv4 243728 46%
MPLS 215627 41%
#sh mpls ip binding summary
Total number of prefixes: 211
Generic label bindings
assigned learned
prefixes in labels out labels
211 210 416
Total tib route info allocated: 194
bbn-ms-gw#debug bgp ipv4 unicast mpls
BGP MPLS labels debugging is on
2w0d: BGP: adding MPLS label to 202.52.15.0/24 sending labels not enabled
2w0d: BGP: adding MPLS label to 202.52.12.0/24 sending labels not enabled
Why it added MPLS label to prefix?
Noone told it to do that.

Pavel,
Are the full Internet feeds in VRFs.
If so, IOS allocates one label per VRF prefix. you can use the following command to force IOS to allocate only 1 label per VRF:
mpls label mode { vrf | all-vrfs }protocol bgp_vpnv4 per-vrf
BTW, this is a hidden command.
Hope this helps,

Mpls over atm ppp over aal5

Hi,
Does cisco support mpls over atm-ppp-llc
per RFC 2354(PPP over AAL5).
Something like a scenario if Cisco acts as a PE and it gets frames with mpls over atm-ppp-llc from a connected CE ,is it supported in cisco , or it will drop the frames ?
Running mpls over ce-pe link is mandatory for the specific scenario.
Thanks
Thanks in advance

Hello,
The MPLS should be supported also on PPP over AAL5. Simply use the "mpls ip" command on the Virtual-Template or the Dialer interface you are using on top of the ATM VC to set up the PPP interface.
The 3640 with proper IOS can support the PE functions. The Enterprise feature sets should be equipped with all features necessary to provide a PE router functionality - basically, the VRF, MPLS, LDP, MPLS VPN support, BGP, BGP VPNv4 support, IGP protocols with VRF support and that should be sufficient.
Best regards,
Peter

MPLS P and PE physical connectivity

Hi all,
I have a question regarding the physical connectivity between a P router and a PE router. Some are saying it's best practice to use two 2960G, but I am not convince. Why not connect both P and PE directly? That would probably be more efficient as well.
Thanks
Martin

Hi Martin,
The connectivity between PE and P in a MPLS environment largely does not depend on MPLS features but on other network design considerations like bandwidth, available cabling, intermediate equipment required, f.e. POS or ethernet, distance between P and PE - to name just a few. It is perfectly OK to have PE and P connected back-to-back.
There are many networks in service provider or enterprise environments, where exactly this is implemented in parts of the network. There are even large MPLS networks without any 2960G interconnecting PE and P routers.
Your information about the usage of 2960G might stem from another requirement; for the MPLS P or PE functionality it would not make a difference. So I would not call it best practice without specifying in more detail, which other requirements lead to this statement.
Hope this helps! please rate all posts.
Regards, Martin

Is it MPLS mtu problem ?

Our compny is serviceing Mpls between HQ and Branch. PE<->PE is running EBGP through ppp multilink and PE<->CE is running OSPF.The PE router is a cisco 3845.When I configure, it is working well. In case CE<->CE, I can a ping each other, but I can not access web-server from Branch 2day later. I thought it is MTU problem,So that is way I have changed PE<->PE mtu size as 1526 and CE<->CE 1436. It was working well web-server,FTP at time. What am I asking you, I can access some kind of file.
Do I have to re-adjust Mtu size ? If do I have to do, which position do I have to do it ? Let me know. I am in serious.

Hi,
You might have a MTU issue, but maybe not in the MPLS environment.
Usually hosts are connected to the network through ethernet and have a MTU of 1500 Bytes. Thus your CE setting of 1436 Bytes might create your observed problem. The CE router might have to discard packets above 1436 with DF bit set.
MPLS adds 2 labels, i.e. 8 Bytes. With your settings this should create no problem (1436+8=1444 < 1526).
The general recommendadtion thus is: CE <-> CE should be 1500 Byte and inside the MPLS network you should adjust MTU to allow this.
Example:
CE:
interface Serial0
description to PE Serial1/0
mtu 1500
PE:
interface Serial1/0
description to CE Serial0
mtu 1500
interface Serial1/1
description to MPLS cloud
mtu 1526
mpls ip
To localize your problem I would use an extended ping with df bit set and varying sizes. You should get 1436 Bytes with your current settings. Increase this to 1500 Bytes MTU and test again. Finally you should be able to rule out network related issues - there might still be application related issues like file access restrictions on the server.
Hope this helps! Please use the rating system.
Regards, Martin

Routing multicast between vlans thru VRF's

Team,
Need a help / Suggestion on the VRF to route the multicast traffic between the vlans
The problem is something like this
We have a source residing on the Vlan X on the Catalyst 4503 and the clients will be on the Vlan Y on the 6509(on a VSS mode). As of now, clients from different Vlans on the 4503 will join the multicast group by sending the igmp joining massage (we have multicast routing and PIM configured on the vlan interfaces on the 4503). [ REFER ATTACHED DIAGRAM ]
Now the requirement is the client on the different Vlan on the 6509 should receive multicast OR join the multicast group on 4503
a) We have L3 connectivity between the 4503 <> 6509 (and a VSS configuration on 6509)
b) I was given understanding that through VRF-lite feature this can be achieved (without PIM configured), If the source & destination on the different switches is it ok to achieve it ?
c) What configuration is required to route the multicast traffic from 4503 to 6509 using the VRF-lite
d) Also, Please brief me about VRF-lite technology and let me know how different it is from VRF- MPLS & VPN
Please revert me if need any more information
Any inputs / suggestion in this regard is highly appreciated
Thank you in advance
Shash

try to use sparse or better yet, PIM sparse-dense-mode and set a RendevousPoint as the root of the shared tree, or AutoRP if you can.
this may provide better results than dense-mode.
see this link for more info:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1835/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a00800ca794.html#wp1001103

WAAS in VRF\MPLS Environment

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for