multicast VRF through global routing table

[Johnson_Mo]

hi team,

I have c9300 connected to SRX 340 via static route. I have also VRF on this switch with vrf default route through global. the VRF has  source multicast and needs to get out through global routing table. 

VRF config 

po11

no switchport

ip vrf forwarding  cust1

ip add 1.1.0.2/24

ip igmp static-group 235.1.1.1

ip pim sparse-mode

ing gi 1/0/1

des rp-VRF

ip vrf forwarding  cust1

2.2.2.2/24 

ip pim sparse-mode

int gi 1/0/11

des src-mcast

192.168.1.1/24

ip igm sparse-mode

ip pim vrf cust1 rp-address 2.2.2.2 235.1.1.1

ip route vrf cust1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Port-channel1 1.1.2.1 global

po1

description Connection to srx 340

no switch port

ip add 1.1.2.2/24 

ip pim sparse-mode

ip igmp static-group 235.1.1.1

int gi 1/0/14

des rp-global

3.3.3.3/32

ip pim sparse-mode 

ip pim rp-address 3.3.3.3  235.1.1.1

ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 1.1.2.1

ip route 1.1.0.0 255.255.255.0 Port-channel1

when I do show ip mroute cust1 235.1.1.1         

(*, 235.1.1.1), 1d04h/stopped, RP 2.2.2.2, flags: SPF
Incoming interface: Null, RPF nbr 0.0.0.0
Outgoing interface list: Null

(192.168.1.2, 235.1.1.1), 1d04h/00:02:53, flags: PFT
Incoming interface: GigabitEthernet1/0/11, RPF nbr 0.0.0.0
Outgoing interface list: Null

is it possible to leak or force VRF traffic including multicast to go through global? 

thanks in advance 

[balaji.bandi]

check some reference guide : (based on what IOS XE and License you have on Cat 9300 ?)

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst9300/software/release/16-8/configuration_guide/ip_mcast_rtng/b_168_ip_mcast_rtng_9300_cg/configuring_vrf_lite.html#concept_ef1_qbq_s1b

[Johnson_Mo]

appreciate the response and article. my configs are based pretty much on the instructions in the article and still does not work. I was wondering if this is a limitation of 9300?

[balaji.bandi]

do the debug and also check other side.

[paul driver]

Hello
you static route towards the vrf cus is pointing to the wrong PC interface by the looks of it - 

Also why are you showing different RP addressing?

maybe you could share a topographical diagram ?