Having trouble removing a static route from a leaf switch

ericbkchng · ‎03-27-2015

Hi!

I have a static route that I'm not able to remove from a leaf switch.

Previously, I've added a bridge domain with a 10.88.88.0/24 subnet; this resulted in the following route being created:

10.88.88.0/24, ubest/mbest: 1/0, attached, direct, pervasive

*via 10.100.100.128%overlay-1, [1/0], 1d01h, static

Is there a way to remove the above route? I've set up a routed interface and I'm able to ping to all the other interfaces located on the external switch, but I'm just not able to reach the 10.88.88.0/24 network from the ACI fabric, so I'm suspecting the 10.88.88.0/24 route here.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

-------------------

Below is the full output from show ip route:

Leaf1# show ip ro vrf all

IP Route Table for VRF "black-hole"

'*' denotes best ucast next-hop

'**' denotes best mcast next-hop

'[x/y]' denotes [preference/metric]

'%<string>' in via output denotes VRF <string>

IP Route Table for VRF "overlay-1"

'*' denotes best ucast next-hop

'**' denotes best mcast next-hop

'[x/y]' denotes [preference/metric]

'%<string>' in via output denotes VRF <string>

10.100.100.0/27, ubest/mbest: 1/0, attached, direct

*via 10.100.100.30, Vlan13, [1/0], 3w1d, direct

10.100.100.30/32, ubest/mbest: 1/0, attached

*via 10.100.100.30, Vlan13, [1/0], 3w1d, local

10.100.100.32/32, ubest/mbest: 2/0, attached, direct

*via 10.100.100.32, Lo1023, [1/0], 3w1d, local

*via 10.100.100.32, Lo1023, [1/0], 3w1d, direct

10.100.100.65/32, ubest/mbest: 1/0

*via 10.100.100.222, Eth1/60.12, [115/2], 3w1d, isis-isis_infra, L1

10.100.100.66/32, ubest/mbest: 1/0

*via 10.100.100.222, Eth1/60.12, [115/2], 3w1d, isis-isis_infra, L1

10.100.100.128/32, ubest/mbest: 1/0

*via 10.100.100.222, Eth1/60.12, [115/2], 3w1d, isis-isis_infra, L1

10.100.100.129/32, ubest/mbest: 1/0

*via 10.100.100.222, Eth1/60.12, [115/2], 3w1d, isis-isis_infra, L1

10.100.100.130/32, ubest/mbest: 2/0, attached, direct

*via 10.100.100.130, Lo1, [1/0], 3w0d, local

*via 10.100.100.130, Lo1, [1/0], 3w0d, direct

10.100.100.221/32, ubest/mbest: 1/0

*via 10.100.100.222, Eth1/60.12, [115/3], 3w1d, isis-isis_infra, L1

10.100.100.222/32, ubest/mbest: 1/0

*via 10.100.100.222, Eth1/60.12, [115/2], 3w1d, isis-isis_infra, L1

10.100.100.223/32, ubest/mbest: 2/0, attached, direct

*via 10.100.100.223, Lo0, [1/0], 3w1d, local

*via 10.100.100.223, Lo0, [1/0], 3w1d, direct

IP Route Table for VRF "L2-Tenant:L2-Tenant-Network"

'*' denotes best ucast next-hop

'**' denotes best mcast next-hop

'[x/y]' denotes [preference/metric]

'%<string>' in via output denotes VRF <string>

0.0.0.0/0, ubest/mbest: 1/0

*via 192.168.255.1, Eth1/16, [1/0], 01:21:58, static

1.1.1.100/32, ubest/mbest: 2/0, attached, direct

*via 1.1.1.100, Lo7, [1/0], 07:42:49, local

*via 1.1.1.100, Lo7, [1/0], 07:42:49, direct

10.88.88.0/24, ubest/mbest: 1/0, attached, direct, pervasive

*via 10.100.100.128%overlay-1, [1/0], 1d01h, static

10.108.0.0/24, ubest/mbest: 1/0, attached, direct, pervasive

*via 10.100.100.128%overlay-1, [1/0], 02:09:44, static

10.108.0.1/32, ubest/mbest: 1/0, attached

*via 10.108.0.1, Vlan59, [1/0], 02:09:44, local

10.108.1.0/24, ubest/mbest: 1/0, attached, direct, pervasive

*via 10.100.100.128%overlay-1, [1/0], 02:58:24, static

10.108.1.1/32, ubest/mbest: 1/0, attached

*via 10.108.1.1, Vlan15, [1/0], 02:02:31, local

40.10.20.0/24, ubest/mbest: 1/0, attached, direct, pervasive

*via 10.100.100.128%overlay-1, [1/0], 2w4d, static

40.10.30.0/24, ubest/mbest: 1/0, attached, direct, pervasive

*via 10.100.100.128%overlay-1, [1/0], 2w2d, static

50.0.0.0/24, ubest/mbest: 1/0, attached, direct, pervasive

*via 10.100.100.128%overlay-1, [1/0], 1w6d, static

50.1.0.0/24, ubest/mbest: 1/0, attached, direct, pervasive

*via 10.100.100.128%overlay-1, [1/0], 1w6d, static

50.2.0.0/24, ubest/mbest: 1/0, attached, direct, pervasive

*via 10.100.100.128%overlay-1, [1/0], 1w6d, static

50.3.0.0/24, ubest/mbest: 1/0, attached, direct, pervasive

*via 10.100.100.128%overlay-1, [1/0], 1w6d, static

192.168.3.0/24, ubest/mbest: 1/0, attached, direct, pervasive

*via 10.100.100.128%overlay-1, [1/0], 1d00h, static

192.168.255.0/24, ubest/mbest: 1/0, attached, direct

*via 192.168.255.2, Eth1/16, [1/0], 07:39:52, direct

192.168.255.2/32, ubest/mbest: 1/0, attached

*via 192.168.255.2, Eth1/16, [1/0], 07:39:52, local

Leaf1#

dpita · ‎03-27-2015

Hello

I think i will need some clarification on what the 10.88.88.0/24 route is. Is it an ACI BD? or an external subnet on a switch? it seems like it is an ACI subnet/SVI or something learned from another leaf.

Any further information will help(a topology?)! thank you.

ericbkchng · ‎03-27-2015

Hi dpita,

Yes, that is an ACI BD.

If it helps, I have uploaded a screenshot; I'm able to see the routes in the GUI, but unable to remove (there was an error).

ericbkchng · ‎03-27-2015

I'm also seeing the routes under the BGP VPN routes (attached).

dpita · ‎03-31-2015

Ok i see now.

Generally you don't delete anything from Fabric>Inventory. That area of the GUI is pretty much just "show" commands.

If you want to delete the route of 10.88.88.0/24 out of the table then deleting the ACI BD is the only way if i understand you correctly. Otherwise, there must be a static path or something referencing that network for it to be in the routing table. The fact that you created the BD and the route appeared is expected but when you cannot ping, something is missing or incomplete.

I suggest you open a case with us (TAC) to further and quickly assist you with your issue. It seems interesting and would be good to understand each other better as well as document the results.

Robert Correiro · ‎03-27-2015

Hi ericbkchng,

Could you please expand upon why you're trying to remove this route? I'm not sure I understand the underlying issue we're trying to resolve.

Thanks.

ericbkchng · ‎03-30-2015

The reason that i'm trying to remove this route is that the EPGs inside my tenant were not able to reach the 10.88.88.0/24 network, because the static route was pointing to the "wrong" interface as you can see in the screenshot that I had uploaded.

I've done a workaround by creating a new VRF and moving the BDs into this new VRF. However, if you have any insights as to how I could remove the route in the old VRF, that would be great.

Thanks!