Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

Silver

VRF Format Issue

Hi Team,

As we all know that RD format on routers is either ASN:nn or IP-address:nn, these are the two standards of RD format but I am getting a different RD format on our routers, its like this nn:ASN:nn when I investigated this I found that these rd formats are coming due to our multicast clients only, its not an RFC standard. When I tried configuring bgp vpnv4 peering between our RRs and third vendor(non Cisco) routers, it wasn?t successful.

Please help me .

1 REPLY

Re: VRF Format Issue

Hi,

There are currently three defined RD types: 0, 1, and 2.

If a Type 0 RD is specified, then the Administrator subfield and Assigned Number subfields are 2 bytes and 4 bytes, respectively:

0:AS:#

If a Type 1 RD is specified, the Administrator subfield and Assigned Number subfields are 4 bytes and 2 bytes, respectively:

1:IP:#

If a Type 2 RD is specified, the Administrator subfield and Assigned Number subfields are 4 and 2 bytes, respectively:

2:AS:#

Type 0 and 1 RDs are used when translating IPv4 prefixes into VPN-IPv4 prefixes. Type 2 RDs can be used to signal Multicast VPNs (MVPNs) (to distinguish it from unicast VPNv4 prefixes), the problem is that RD Type 2 is not standard, the new address family based advertisement method, documented in draft-nalawade-idr-mdt-safi overcomes this limitation, please do check this document:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6604/products_white_paper0900aecd80581f3d.shtml

HTH,

Mohammed Mahmoud.

2433
Views
0
Helpful
1
Replies