11-02-2011 04:39 AM - edited 03-04-2019 02:07 PM
Hi, can I configuration like this? and will it work?
My goal is get default route from BGP session with ISP1 in Main Routing Table, and ISP2 default route in vrf routing table
ISP1("classic" bgp session)
/
R1<
\
ISP2 ("vrf" bgp session)
router bgp 65200
no synchronization
bgp log-neighbor-changesnetwork 10.1.2.0 mask 255.255.255.0no auto-summary
neighbor 10.0.1.1 remote-as 64501
!
address-family ipv4 vrf C1
no synchronization
bgp router-id auto-assign
network 10.1.1.0 mask 255.255.255.0
neighbor 10.0.2.1 remote-as 64502
exit-address-family
11-02-2011 07:34 AM
Hi,
Yes, you can bring one connection to your global and one to a VRF. What are you trying to do?
11-02-2011 10:31 PM
thanks for your answer, well in my case I already have one BGP peer with ISP1 and get from this ISP default(not full view) route in my main routing table, another ISP2 will be on same router with and it will anounce for me default route too. From my side I will anounce for ISPs just part of my BGP address space for each of ISPs(I do this to be sure that my incoming traffic comes to right ISP which I define) I dont want load balace for my outcoming traffic, and outcoming trafic will go to right ISP
11-03-2011 02:28 AM
Hi Krasnoperov,
I suppose for your requirement, yo don't need to for for VRFs.
Better solution is to make route-maps and apply to BGP neighbours as per your requirement.
HTH,
Smitesh
11-03-2011 03:08 AM
You are right, it was first what I do, but I don't know why when I use
PBR on my 3945 router, even for 60mbit/sec incoming traffic my processor load was 60%!!!
And my second descussion was this
11-03-2011 03:37 AM
Hi,
regarding CEF switched in PBR I'd suggest to read exactly whyt kind of "set" or "match" entries are supportd in CEF. May be you're trying to use something which is not CEF'd
11-03-2011 03:46 AM
Yes, tried to do that, but unfortunatly there is no good doc on cisco website which describe what "match" "set" statements are cef swiched, and what type of statements should be in ACL when creating route-maps . For e.g. I found doc's where says that for Cat3750 all deny statement in ACL into route-map goes for RP not cef swiched, for Cat6500 thereis no such info, and so on.
11-03-2011 03:52 AM
Try prefix list instead.
Regards,
Smitesh
11-03-2011 03:58 AM
I've seen a couple of time that sometime named-acl doesn't work correct, but a normal numbered-acl works.
11-03-2011 04:31 AM
Thanks for idea, I make my PBR on named ACL only, so will try to change it to nums ACL. Also I'm intresting if I have statements in my ACL which defines not only source and destination ip addresses but also port numbers and protocols, is PBR stays cef swiched or not?
11-03-2011 04:34 AM
with ports and protocol is a good question , I'd say - no. CEF can't operate with ports number, but I suggest to ask Cisco support they should know it.
11-12-2011 02:04 AM
Have you tried prefix-list as I suggested above.
HTH,
Smitesh
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide