Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

VRF-to-VRF, CE-to-PE

Level 1
Level 1

When multi-VRF have to be set on CE and PE, each VRF-to-VRF need a separated logical link or PVC. For instant:

CE VRF 1--- VRF1 PE pvc1

CE VRF 2--- VRF2 PE pvc2

CE VRF 3--- VRF3 PE pvc3

If CE--ADSL--PE is the ly2 connection, it is not cost effective to assign several PVCs on a CE. It is not scalable also when new VRF add to CE and have to add additional PVC for the VRF-to-VRF.

When using VRF-lite, VLAN-trunking is the common techniq but when fram-relay,ADSL is being used between CE-PE, is there any cost effective solution?

Thanks in advance

4 Replies 4

Sanjeewa Alahakone
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

Conceptually "vrf selection" feature might help you

Please refer to;



Thank you Sanjeewa.

My problem is VRF has to be set up on CE. VRF selector is suitable for multiple VRFs share one interface on PE. For the CE VRF-- PE VRF, Cisco solution is VRF-lite. But different VRF peer needs different logical link or PVC. Is it possible several VRF peers share one logical link or PVC?


you could use multiple GRE tunnels between PE and CE and put them into the appropriate VRFs.

In this case you only need one layer2 link ...




I have a similar requirement where we are using GRE/IPSec tunnels between the PE and CE. I have tested this in the lab and found the following results.

With multiple GRE only tunnels between PE and CE it works with all tested IOS versions.

With multiple GRE/IPSec tunnels between PE(12.3.12a) and CE it did not work for 12.3.11T but does work for 12.3.14T and 12.4.1a

My question now is should this work? Is this a bug that was fixed between 12.3.11T and 12.3.14T or is it a new feature (or bug) introduced at 12.3.14T

Is this in any way related to the new IPSec Vitrual Tunnel Interface introduced in 12.3.14T ?