Hi,   I think XRv does not support IPSLA. Can you try the same config in a physical node?.   Thansk, Nagendra ... View more

Hi,   it is probably an implementation decision. I am not aware of any technical limitation that needs ISIS to be enabled on a per interface basis. The procedure of enabling ISIS on a per interface basis is for IOS and OSPFv3 introduces similar configuration approach in IOS.   IOS-XR configuration is different and any IGP protocol follows the below:   router <igp-type> <instance> interface <interface-num> address-family <> ... NXOS follows the IOS format. So I think it is just implementation matter.   HTH, Nagendra ... View more

Yes right, for the return traffic from XX to hosts in VRF. Thanks for pointing ... View more

Hi,   For each of those 20 VRFs, are you using a static default route?. If so, I think you can configure another vrf specific default static route with NH from global.   Below is an example:   ip route vrf TEST 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.1.23.3 ip route vrf TEST 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.1.25.5 global   The above will install 2 default static routes in VRF TEST table with 1 NH as 10.1.23.3 from VRF TEST and other NH 10.1.25.5 from global routing table.   Below is the CEF output:   R2#sh ip cef vrf TEST 0.0.0.0/0 detail 0.0.0.0/0, epoch 0, flags [default route], per-destination sharing recursive via 10.1.23.3 recursive via 10.1.23.0/24 attached to Ethernet0/0.2 recursive via 10.1.25.5 recursive via 10.1.25.0/24 attached to Ethernet0/0.25 R2#   HTH, Nagendra ... View more

Hi m.x,   They both are different ways of enabling NAT for specific flow/host. The use of ACL is to identify a range of source/destination while static is specific.   In your example, creating " ip nat source static tcp 10.0.01 3389 interface Dialer0 3389" will work and does not need 3389 port to be allowed on ACL. They are not related.   HTH, Nagendra ... View more

Hi, Below is the link for ASR1k EVPN configuration guide: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/cether/configuration/xe-16/ce-xe-16-book/evpn-vxlan-l3.html Thanks, Nagendra ... View more

Hi Any prefix imported from other VRF or GRT will be treated as iBGP learnt prefix and so it will not be advertised to other IBGP neighbor.   This is an expected behavior.   Regards Naendra ... View more

Hi Any route imported from other VRF or GRT will be treated as iBGP learnt and so will not be advertised back to other BGP neighbors. So this is an expected behavior ... View more

Hi, It appears that the Initiator is receiving an error from responder (PE_X in your case) as "No FEC mapping" (return code 10).  Can you try the ping with fec-type as generic?.   Thanks, Nagendra ... View more

Hi, I am not clear with your query. Am I assuming right that you have all PE nodes peering with both the BGP RRs and you want to know if you need peering session between RRs?. to be    If the above assumption is right, you dont need to. As long as the PEs have peer session to both RR, it is fine.    If you query is not the above, let us know more.   HTH, Nagendra ... View more

Hi, The forwarding semantic associated with Router Alert label is to consider it as exception for packet processing. So any packet received with RA label will be punted to CPU for processing. The current usage of Router Alert label is for LSP Ping. More specifically, for Pseudowire LSP Ping. This is to help egress PE differentiate OAM packet from data frames (on PW) and make sure it is not leaked out of the domain. HTH -Nagendra ... View more