Multiples OSPF process per VRF in IOSXR

[antonio.guirado]

Hi,

We need to implement multiples OSPF process in a single VRF according this configuration:

router ospf 10

  vrf TEST

  router-id 10.0.0.24

  area 0

   interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0/1.711

    mtu-ignore enable

   !

  !

router ospf 22

 vrf TEST

 router-id 10.0.25

 area 0

  interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0/1.22

   mtu-ignore enable

  !

 !

!

But we can’t apply the configuration:

!!% Error: VRF TEST already exists in OSPF process 10

We have tested it in a 4.1.2 IOSXR and 6.1.1 IOSXRv (our simulator) with the same result.

We have implemented this in 3.17 IOSXE (ASR903) and 3.16 IOSXE in a virtual router without problem.

Is this a IOXR problem design? Is a feature than must be supported?.

Thank you very much.

Regards.

[trfinkenstadt]

This is a limitation of IOS-XR also present in 5.3.1.  I mean, who would need more than one OSPF process per vrf?

(says nothing about his routers with up to 4 ospf processes in same vrf).

[antonio.guirado]

Hello,

our costumers have multiples services with other operators. We interconnect this services. I mean that we have to connect with operators that define OSPF as protocol. So far, we use a different OSPF process to receive prefixes and redistribute them in our core OSPF process. This way we can "control" that prefixes inyected by operators are fine.  They are two possible solutions:

1- Use multiples areas (1 operator = 1 area). The issue is than our IOSxr 4.1.2 is not very powerfull to manipulate prefixes and set cost or administrative distances. Besides we have to announce only a default route to operators and this makes that area must be nssa. We think that this configuration is no very standar for operators and could not be valid.

2- Use vrf's  (1 operator = 1 vrf) and redistribute into default table using BGP. We are using this solution in other enviroment but we think that perhaps there is a more simple solution.

We can think that our 4.1.2 IOSXR is very old and not very feature-riched but in our 6.1.1 IOSXRv virtual router there is the same limitation.

Thank you.

Regards.