VRF Format Issue

[shivlu jain]

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 .

[mohammedmahmoud]

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.