Connect. Secure. Manage.
Cisco VRF-Lite Segmentation
Separate routing domains with Cisco VRF-Lite, defining shared services, route leaking and security boundaries for each group of users or workloads.
Devices supported
across the UK
Client locations
supported
Traffic handled
at peak time
Average
response time
Average response is not a resolution time or a contractual guarantee. Support scope and response commitments are agreed for each engagement.
Cisco VRF-Lite segmentation separates routing tables on supported routers and Layer 3 switches. It can help organisations keep different customers, business units or security zones logically distinct while using shared physical infrastructure. MCI Network Services designs and reviews VRF-Lite deployments with particular attention to the interfaces, gateways and controlled connections between routing domains.
Cisco-focused engineering
Design around the platform, traffic and failure behaviour you actually operate.
Change with evidence
Use pre-checks, acceptance criteria and a documented route back.
Operational handover
Keep the configuration, diagrams and responsibilities understandable after delivery.
Define what needs separating
The starting point is a clear requirement for isolation. Different organisations may share a building, or a company may need to separate management, production and guest traffic. We identify which endpoints belong to each routing domain and which services, if any, must be shared.
VRF-Lite provides separate routing contexts, but it is not a complete security solution on its own. Firewalls, access controls and administrative protections may still be necessary. We explain the difference between routing separation and enforced security policy before choosing a topology.
Standards & partnerships
Confidence in the team behind your network.
Cisco Partner
Cisco Meraki
Cyber Essentials
Cyber Essentials PlusMCI Network Services is operated by Proxar Ltd. Certifications apply to the certified legal entity and the scope of its certificates. View accreditation information
Map the physical and logical boundaries
A VRF is associated with interfaces or other supported routing constructs. We document which VLAN interfaces, routed links and loopbacks belong to each instance. A misassigned interface can create unexpected reachability or interrupt a critical service.
We also review how the separation extends across switches, WAN routers and firewalls. An isolated VRF on one device does not guarantee end-to-end separation if the next hop merges traffic into a shared routing table. The complete path needs a consistent design and a clear owner.
A useful starting point
Not sure where to start?
Bring the requirement. We will help you define the engineering work.
Plan addressing and gateway services
Separate VRFs can permit the reuse of addresses in particular designs, but overlapping networks introduce operational complexity. We check the customer’s addressing plan, DNS, DHCP, monitoring and management systems before deciding whether overlap is justified.
Shared infrastructure services may need to be reachable from several routing domains. We document how those services are accessed and which controls apply. A management platform should not gain unrestricted access to every segment simply because engineers need visibility during incidents.
Different environments. The same care.
Built around the work
your network supports.
Finance, banking and the wider private sector. We start with the systems and people that depend on your connections.
Finance & banking
Market-data paths, routing and provider coordination on clients’ behalf.
Financial-market services ↗Offices & multi-site teams
Reliable access between people, workplaces and business applications.
Office network design ↗Data centres & cloud
Network boundaries, workload connections and operational ownership.
Data centre networks ↗Design controlled route leaking
Some applications need to communicate across otherwise separated VRFs. Route leaking can provide selected reachability where supported, but it must follow an explicit policy. We identify the exact prefixes and services that need to cross the boundary, then decide whether a firewall or another inspection point should mediate the traffic.
We avoid broad route exchange that undermines the original isolation requirement. Route maps, static routes or other supported mechanisms must be chosen for the actual platform and release. The design should state which flows are allowed and how those flows will be tested.
Coordinate with dynamic routing
A VRF-Lite environment may run OSPF, BGP or static routing in separate contexts. We review neighbour relationships, route policies and the consequences of a failed upstream connection. A default route in the wrong VRF can cause confusing failures or unintended traffic paths.
Operational tools need to query the correct routing context. A route that appears missing in the global table may be present in a VRF-specific table. We ensure the support team knows how to inspect the relevant forwarding state without assuming the network is broken.
Validate separation and application access
Acceptance testing must prove both the intended connectivity and the intended absence of connectivity. We test representative endpoints within each VRF, approved cross-domain services and unauthorised paths that should remain blocked. We also check how routing behaves during failover.
A successful ping within one segment is not sufficient evidence of isolation. Tests should include the relevant gateway, firewall and return path, with results recorded for future audits. Where the customer has regulatory obligations, the evidence should support its assessment without implying that a VRF configuration alone establishes compliance.
Support the segmented estate
We recommend keeping a VRF register, interface maps, addressing plans and approved route-leaking policies. Changes to a shared service can affect several routing domains, so configuration updates need appropriate review and rollback procedures.
MCI provides Cisco and Meraki networking services across the UK, particularly London, Kent, Sussex, Essex and Berkshire. We can assess existing VRF-Lite segmentation, design new routing boundaries and validate that the implementation meets the customer’s actual separation and operational requirements.
Review the impact of future changes
Segmentation is not a one-off configuration exercise. A new firewall, cloud connection or monitoring tool can create a route between domains that were previously isolated. We therefore recommend checking the relevant VRF boundaries whenever a new shared service is introduced or an existing routing policy is changed.
The review should cover both planned and accidental connectivity. We examine whether management access, backup traffic and diagnostic tools use dedicated paths or shared gateways, and whether those paths are consistent with the customer’s access-control requirements. This prevents a later operational shortcut from quietly weakening an otherwise sound design.
Talk to a specialist
What does your network need next?
Tell us what you are planning, changing or trying to improve. We will help define a practical next step and the engineering scope.
+44 203 196 6566Choose option 1
sales@proxar.co.ukUK-wide service.
Most of our engineers are based in Kent, with a focus on London, Sussex, Essex and Berkshire.
Existing customers should use their agreed support and escalation channels. This form is for service enquiries, not a monitored emergency ticket.
Tell us what you need.
A short outline is enough. Please do not include passwords or sensitive network details.
Thank you. Your enquiry has been submitted.
Please check your name, email and message, then try again.
Your form session expired. Please try again.
Please wait a minute before sending another enquiry.
We could not submit your enquiry. Please call or email us instead.