Hello everyone,
When you redistribute hmm into ipv4, these routes are advertised to other leaf switches, resulting in two routes installed in their respective ip-vrf. Something like this:
BGP routing table entry for 192.168.10.11/32, version 6
Paths: (2 available, best #2)
Flags: (0x8008021a) (high32 00000000) on xmit-list, is in urib, is best urib route, is in HW
vpn: version 6, (0x00000000100002) on xmit-list
Path type: internal, path is valid, not best reason: Origin, no labeled nexthop
Imported from 1.1.1.1:3:[5]:[0]:[0]:[32]:[192.168.10.11]/224
AS-Path: NONE, path sourced internal to AS
1.1.1.1 (metric 81) from 3.3.3.3 (3.3.3.3)
Origin incomplete, MED 0, localpref 100, weight 0
Received label 100
Extcommunity: RT:65000:100 ENCAP:8 Router MAC:5216.a244.1b08
Originator: 1.1.1.1 Cluster list: 3.3.3.3
Advertised path-id 1, VPN AF advertised path-id 1
Path type: internal, path is valid, is best path, no labeled nexthop, in rib
Imported from 1.1.1.1:32777:[2]:[0]:[0]:[48]:[5254.000c.20cd]:[32]:[192.168.10.11]/272
AS-Path: NONE, path sourced internal to AS
1.1.1.1 (metric 81) from 3.3.3.3 (3.3.3.3)
Origin IGP, MED not set, localpref 100, weight 0
Received label 10 100
Extcommunity: RT:65000:10 RT:65000:100 ENCAP:8 Router MAC:5216.a244.1b08
Originator: 1.1.1.1 Cluster list: 3.3.3.3
The only reason why EVPN imported route won is because of origin.
I see that on Juniper we have a preference mechanism:
The preference algorithm works as follows:
For any destinations for which the device has no Type 5 route, the device uses Type 2 routes.
If the device has a Type 5 route with a matching prefix for a local ESI Type 2 route, it installs the Type 2 route.
Otherwise the device prefers the Type 5 route for all other destinations.
is this the case for cisco as well?
