<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: How does R80.20 OSPF instance compare with a Cisco VRF in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/How-does-R80-20-OSPF-instance-compare-with-a-Cisco-VRF/m-p/8873#M1124</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;According to the Advanced routing guide:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="color: #333333;"&gt;"Each instance contains a fully independent OSPF database, and routes from one domain are not automatically advertised to another domain"&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think this means that 1 devices routing table will have routes from both OSPF instances, and routes that clash will be ranked according to routing rules.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;VRF in the other hand creates 2 distinct routing tables, and this is different from ospf instances.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is how i understood it, maybe im wrong, feel free to correct me.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:06:52 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Ricardo_Gros</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-11-26T11:06:52Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>How does R80.20 OSPF instance compare with a Cisco VRF</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/How-does-R80-20-OSPF-instance-compare-with-a-Cisco-VRF/m-p/8872#M1123</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;In the R80.20 boot camp we learned, that OSPF can now have several instances. Am I correct when saying that the separation of routing traffic and routing tables is valid for OSPF only in Gaia R80.20, whereas Cisco VRF is a completely independent virtual routing engine, agnostic to any routing protocol.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2018 20:05:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/How-does-R80-20-OSPF-instance-compare-with-a-Cisco-VRF/m-p/8872#M1123</guid>
      <dc:creator>peter_schumache</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-25T20:05:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: How does R80.20 OSPF instance compare with a Cisco VRF</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/How-does-R80-20-OSPF-instance-compare-with-a-Cisco-VRF/m-p/8873#M1124</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;According to the Advanced routing guide:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="color: #333333;"&gt;"Each instance contains a fully independent OSPF database, and routes from one domain are not automatically advertised to another domain"&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think this means that 1 devices routing table will have routes from both OSPF instances, and routes that clash will be ranked according to routing rules.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;VRF in the other hand creates 2 distinct routing tables, and this is different from ospf instances.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is how i understood it, maybe im wrong, feel free to correct me.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:06:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/How-does-R80-20-OSPF-instance-compare-with-a-Cisco-VRF/m-p/8873#M1124</guid>
      <dc:creator>Ricardo_Gros</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-26T11:06:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: How does R80.20 OSPF instance compare with a Cisco VRF</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/How-does-R80-20-OSPF-instance-compare-with-a-Cisco-VRF/m-p/8874#M1125</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Its actually on the guide also&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="color: #333333;"&gt;Multiple instances are supported both on IPv4 and IPv6. If two different OSPF instances try to install the same route with equal cost, the route with the lower next-hop IP address is preferred. If the routes have different costs, the route with the lower cost is selected.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="color: #333333;"&gt;Meaning the same Routing table will share routes from all OSPF domains.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:15:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/How-does-R80-20-OSPF-instance-compare-with-a-Cisco-VRF/m-p/8874#M1125</guid>
      <dc:creator>Ricardo_Gros</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-26T11:15:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

