Author: Valter Popeskic

As you can see from my article list, I’m going through some VRF configuration in the last few weeks 🙂

I ran into this today and it sounded interesting enough to share it with you. The issue with TFTP IOS image copy to flash when having all interfaces in specific VRF and no interface in Global Routing Table.

Long story short, you kick in this command for normal IOS download to the router:

R1#copy tftp://10.10.10.11/c890-universalk9-mz.154-3.M5.bin flash:
Destination filename [c890-universalk9-mz.154-3.M5.bin]? 
Accessing tftp://10.10.10.11/c890-universalk9-mz.154-3.M5.bin...
%Error opening tftp://10.10.10.11/c890-universalk9-mz.154-3.M5.bin (Timed out)

…and it isn’t working of course.

(Part II) Virtual Routing and Forwarding

This is the second part in the series of posts dedicated to network virtualization and path isolation.

Ever needed one extra router? It’s possible to split the router into more logical routers by using VRF. How? Here’s how!

Virtual Routing and Forwarding or VRF allows a router to run more that one routing table simultaneously. When running more routing tables in the same time, they are completely independent. For example, you could use overlapping IP addresses inside more VRFs on the same router and they will function independently without conflict (You can see this kind of overlap in the example below). It is possible to use same VRF instance on more routers and connect every instance separately using VRF dedicated router port or only a sub-interface.

You can find VRFs to be used on ISP side. Provider Edge (PE) routers are usually running one VRF per customer VPN so that one router can act as a PE router for multiple Customer Edge (CE) routers even with more customers exchanging the same subnets across the VPN. By running VRF per customer, those subnets will never mix in-between them.

VRFs are used to create multiple virtual routers from one physical router.

Every VRF is creating his own Routing table and CEF table, basically a separate RIB and FIB.

How it works?

If you have two routers / two Layer3 switches connected with two L3 links (two paths) you can route with two equal static routes towards the same prefix and the router will load balance traffic across both links.

The idea is to make two same static routes on the same router but with different next-hops. The question was: Which link or which route will be used? And if the traffic will be load balanced, which mechanism will be used to share the traffic across both of links.

ip route 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 192.168.10.2
ip route 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 192.168.11.2

CoPP – Control Plane Protection or better Control Plain Policing. It is the only option to make some sort of flood protection or QoS for traffic going to control plane.

In the router normal operation the most important traffic is control plain traffic. Control plane traffic is traffic originated on router itself by protocol services running on it, destined to other router device on the network. In order to run properly, routers need to speak with each other. They speak with each other by rules defined in protocols and protocols are running in shape of router services.

Examples for this kind of protocols are routing protocols like BGP, EIGRP, OSPF or some other non-routing protocols like CDP etc..

Control Plane Policing is QoS applied on ingress sub-interfacess towards Route Processor

When router is making BGP neighbour adjacency with the neighbouring router, it means that both routers are running BGP protocol service on them. BGP service is generating control plane traffic, sending that traffic to BGP neighbour and receiving control plane traffic back from the neighbour.

Usage of Control Plane Protection is important on routers receiving heavy traffic of which to many packets are forwarded to Control Plane. In that case, we can filter traffic based on predefined priority classes that we are free to define based on our specific traffic pattern.