From: Joseph Brunner (joe@affirmedsystems.com)
Date: Tue Nov 11 2008 - 17:55:31 ARST
Sure here is how I have been doing it;
Two tunnels, same router, same subnet, sourced from different loopbacks.
One tunnel interface in the vrf, one in the global routing table
ip vrf chd
rd 8818:100
route-target export 17303:100
route-target import 17303:100
interface Tunnel100
description VRF_CHD_BRIDGE_TO_GLOBAL_ROUTING_TABLE
bandwidth 50000
ip vrf forwarding chd
ip address 172.23.254.254 255.255.255.252
load-interval 30
tunnel source Loopback0
tunnel destination 172.24.1.1
!
interface Tunnel200
description GLOBAL_ROUTING_TABLE_BRIDGE_TO_VRF_CHD
bandwidth 50000
ip address 172.23.254.253 255.255.255.252
ip virtual-reassembly
load-interval 30
tunnel source Loopback100
tunnel destination 71.21.188.105
router ospf 100 vrf chd
router-id 172.24.254.254
log-adjacency-changes
area 1 filter-list prefix filter-from-backbone-ospf in
redistribute static subnets route-map static-vrf-chd-redis-to-ospf-100
redistribute bgp 8818 subnets route-map redis-bgp-vrf-chd-to-ospf
network 71.21.188.153 0.0.0.0 area 1
network 71.21.188.185 0.0.0.0 area 1
network 172.23.254.254 0.0.0.0 area 0
network 192.168.40.1 0.0.0.0 area 1
network 192.168.100.105 0.0.0.0 area 1
default-information originate always
!
router ospf 1
router-id 172.24.1.1
log-adjacency-changes
passive-interface default
no passive-interface Serial1/0
no passive-interface Tunnel32
no passive-interface Tunnel40
no passive-interface Tunnel50
no passive-interface Tunnel51
no passive-interface Tunnel200
network 71.21.26.58 0.0.0.0 area 0
network 71.21.188.105 0.0.0.0 area 0
network 172.23.1.1 0.0.0.0 area 0
network 172.23.1.9 0.0.0.0 area 0
network 172.23.1.13 0.0.0.0 area 0
network 172.23.254.253 0.0.0.0 area 0
network 172.24.1.1 0.0.0.0 area 0
network 192.168.30.1 0.0.0.0 area 0
network 67.80..173.75 0.0.0.0 area 0
router bgp 8818
bgp router-id 71.21.188.105
bgp log-neighbor-changes
neighbor 71.21.26.57 remote-as 4323
neighbor 172.24.1.2 remote-as 8818
neighbor 172.24.1.2 update-source Loopback100
neighbor 67.80..173.73 remote-as 29838
!
address-family ipv4
neighbor 71.21.26.57 activate
neighbor 71.21.26.57 weight 300
neighbor 71.21.26.57 route-map to-twtc out
neighbor 172.24.1.2 activate
neighbor 172.24.1.2 route-map localasonly out
neighbor 67.80.173.73 activate
neighbor 67.80.173.73 weight 200
neighbor 67.80.173.73 route-map to-atantic-metro-ny out
no auto-summary
no synchronization
network 71.21.188.0 mask 255.255.255.0
network 172.24.1.1 mask 255.255.255.255
exit-address-family
!
address-family vpnv4
neighbor 172.24.1.2 activate
neighbor 172.24.1.2 send-community both
exit-address-family
!
address-family ipv4 vrf chd
redistribute ospf 100 vrf chd route-map ospf-to-bgp-vrf-100
no synchronization
exit-address-family
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Carlos Trujillo
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 2:05 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: route leaking from global to vrf when there is no VRF interfaces.
HI group.
Im having a simple MPLS VPN scenario between PE4s:
[CE]-----[PE1]----[P]-----[PE(BORDER)]------[ISP1]
I give a brief description about the topology shown:
There is an MP-IBGP peering between PE1 and PE(BORDER).
PE1 has its CE interface associated to CLIENT VRF, and PE(BORDER) has
all of its interfaces associated to the global routing table.
PE(BORDER) also has the VRF created but none interface attached to the
vrf, so It can see the routes sourced from CE.
What I want is to give CE routing connectivity to ISP1 (internet), so
the data path a packet takes when it leaves CE router it
follows PE1, then it travels in the MPLS VPN to PE(BORDER) and then I
leak that route from the VPN to the global table using static
routes, and then the packet succesfully enters the ISP router, so at
this point its working OK.
For the return packet I cant make the packet who comes from an
interface of the global table to enter the VRF TABLE (vpn) and travels
via the VPN to PE1.
I saw two examples found in cisco.com showing how to leak from VRF TO
global and from global to VRF, and in both cases it uses static routes
pointing
to an outbound interface and a next hop, but my scenario is different
to them in that PE(BORDER) router has all of its interfaces attached
to the global
routing table, and If I create a static route, to what outbound
interface do I point to? if all of its interfaces belong to the global
routing table.
Please If any have an idea how to let it work?
Thanks.
# 21813 R&S
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Dec 01 2008 - 08:18:30 ARST