02-28-2008 07:56 PM
Hi Guys,
I am having some difficulty getting traffic into a TE tunnel using static routes.
the architecture is PE to PE via ethernet. i have a single route that comes in via a subinterface which is in a vrf, when i put in a static route i get no traffic coming back. if i use the auto-route announce feature everything works, but i only want this vrf to go down the tunnel. the config on one end is as follows:
interface Tunnel1
ip unnumbered Loopback0
mpls ip
tunnel destination x.x.x.x
tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng
tunnel mpls traffic-eng priority 7 7
tunnel mpls traffic-eng bandwidth 1500
tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 10 dynamic
!
interface GigabitEthernet0/1.100
encapsulation dot1Q 100
ip vrf forwarding CCPUB
ip address 172.x.x.x 255.255.255.0
!
ip route 172.22.188.0 255.255.255.0 Tunnel1
ip route 172.22.192.0 255.255.255.0 Tunnel1
any suggestions?
Garry
02-28-2008 10:09 PM
Hi Garry,
You can chk this post for routing a specific VRF via TE tunnel:
03-07-2008 10:20 AM
Gary,
Are 172.22.188.0/24 and 172.22.192.0/24 VRF routes or BGP NH for the PEs advertising the VRF routes via BGP VPNv4? It should be the latter.
Hope this helps,
03-12-2008 05:24 AM
Hi Harold,
As the routes are /24 it will not work in either case.
If the routes are for BGP next hops they must be /32 and if they are within the VRF this will lead to packet leaking.
This means, the VPN label will not be attached and thus no connectivity within the VRF will be achieved.
This goes back to one of our discussions here in 2005:
Regards, Martin
03-13-2008 09:32 AM
Martin,
There is nothing that would prevent the BGP NH for VPNv4 routes to resolve via a /24 static route pointing at a tunnel interface, such as the ones posted by the original poster.
The fact that the BGP NH should be resolved via a /32 is rather a recommendation/best practices rather than a hard limitation.
Regards,
03-14-2008 03:41 AM
Hi Harold,
this would only work, if the Loopback is configured as /24, otherwise the LIB would not contain a suitable entry and hence no label could be found. This is what I meant, but did not express to clearly.
Regards, Martin
03-14-2008 06:45 AM
Martin,
I was assuming TE LSP from ingress to egress PE. The LIB would not be used at all in this case.
You would still certainly need the loopback interface at the other end to be advertised as a /24 or greater for it to be overridden by the /24 static route pointing at the tunnel interface.
Regards,
03-14-2008 07:45 AM
Hi Harold,
As "mpls ip" is configured on the tunnel interface would the LIB be in the picture then?
Regards, Martin
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide