VRF-lite and existing EIGRP process

[Erik Boon]

Hello All,

I want to configure VRF-lite and using EIGRP as routing protocol. It's going to be implemented on an existing configuration whereas EIGRP is configured in the global IP routing. What is the best practice of implementing this? Can I configure an address family within the existing EIGRP process, should I create a new one or is both possible and what is the advantage/disadvantage?

Thanks in advance!

[Reza Sharifi · Accepted solution]

Hi,

You can use the existing one and just add address-family vrf to it.  This way, there is less configuration involved:

so, if your EIGRP id is 100, you can add:

address-family ipv4 test

network 10.10.10.0 0.0.0.255

network 20.20.20.0 0.0.0.255

auton-system 100

exit

You want to make sure you do this during a maintenance windows as it will cause outage.

HTH

[Erik Boon]

Thanks Reza!

I agree I should do this during a maintenance window, but are you sure adding above configuration wil cause een outage in the global routing instance. I tried it in a lab and it didn't.

Erik

[paul driver · Accepted solution]

Hello

Depends what you mean by adding vrf to existing eigrp?

If you mean changing the current eigrp peering into a vrf then yes it will cause an outage

however..

If you mean introducing vrf lite on these routers new physical interfaces and using the existing eigrp protocol over the top then
I agree with you this wont cause an outage too the current global eigrp adjacencies - as my understanding vrf utilises its own control/data planes for path determination and forwarding.

res

Paul
 

[Erik Boon]

Hi,

I meant the second scenario. Thanks for completing the answer.

Gr,

Erik