Subject: RE: Management VPN implementation

From: Javier Antich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:31:54 +0200

You should be sure that each CE router has a unique loopback address for
management which is not the same than any other. It should not be a problem
that the links between CE-PE in different VPNs overlap (only that the
routing table in the Management VPN VRF may be funny). 

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Godfrey
To: [email-masked]
Sent: 15/06/01 13:36
Subject: Management VPN implementation

Hi,
I have a question regarding the use of the management VPN.

They way I have implemented our management VPN on Cisco routers is by
importing all the other Route Descriptors in to the management VPN.
All the other VPN's also import the management VPN as shown below:
ip vrf CUST1
 rd 13009:106
 route-target export 13009:106
 route-target import 13009:106
 route-target import 13009:108
!
ip vrf CUST2
 rd 13009:110
 route-target export 13009:110
 route-target import 13009:110
 route-target import 13009:108
!
<<<<<SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>
ip vrf MGMNT
 rd 13009:108
 route-target export 13009:108
 route-target import 13009:108
 route-target import 13009:10
 route-target import 13009:102
 route-target import 13009:106
 route-target import 13009:112
 route-target import 13009:110
 route-target import 13009:104
 route-target import 13009:114

This works fine at the moment, my question is when CUST3 is configured
say
he uses the same address space as CUST2, i.e. 10.10.10.0/24 when I
import
that route descriptor into the management VPN I will get conflicting
address
space.

Has anyone resolved this issue in their implementation?

Thanks in Advance,

Steve.