DMVPN and VRF's

Daniel Smith · ‎01-23-2012

We are experimenting with VRF technology as a solution to support different IP services (corporate, scada, etc) over a single infrastructure, with local isolation needed between them. A coworker suggested I use DMVPN to permit dynamic tunnel creation for these services. I was successful in getting two remotes to dynamically connect to the head end over a single tunnel, supporting the 'corporate' IP service. I wanted to get another IP service out there, and went down the path of a second DMVPN config..however, no luck. I tried different combinations of using loopback IPs and interface IPs to terminate the tunnels on, but mostly I ended up killing the original working tunnel. I wonder if parallel dynamic tunnels just aren't supported, or if there is a trick to making this work that I have not yet discovered?

Joseph W. Doherty · ‎01-24-2012

Disclaimer

The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.

Liability Disclaimer

In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.

Posting

My understanding is, it should be possible, but I had a heck of a time getting DMVPN to work with VRF, in my case just one VRF instance (beside the global). Cisco's documentation is sparse on these type of configurations, and what you exactly need to make it work isn't well documented. In my case, found the magic combination after much trial and error.

My working config is posted in this thread: https://supportforums.cisco.com/message/3439970#3439970