Re: VRF ping fails to switch

thanks for the replies, I should have mentioned I'm pretty good with mpls
vpns so I'm not missing something basic in the config unless older code has
some tricks? I'm unable to recreate now on a rack with newer code, go figure

the vrf w/ route targets was on the router (part of a csc config), no vrf on
the switch, just L3 port directly connected to the router.

I took the vrf off the router and ping works fine, put it back on and ......
or U.U.U.U (yes reapplied all ip add)

wondering if this was a bug as some mentioned, I didn't have mpls on that
specific interface of the router but other interfaces had it enabled (not
globally). I did have 'mpls lab proto ldp' globally

messing around I threw a vrf on the switch and that ping worked too. also
reloaded both router and switch multiple times. sdm template was default at
first then I changed to routing.

must have been a one time issue but just thought I'd ask you guys

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Rick Mur <rmur_at_ipexpert.com> wrote:

> Geoff,
>
> Like previous posters have said. Make sure the IP address is still on the
> interface.
> Your config should look quite similar to this (perhaps some interface names
> are different):
>
> R1
> !
> ip vrf TEST
> rd 10:10
> !
> int fa0/0
> ip vrf forwarding TEST
> ip address 192.168.1.1
> no shut
> !
>
> S1
> !
> ip vrf TEST
> rd 10:10
> !
> int fa0/1
> no switchport
> ip vrf forwarding TEST
> ip address 192.168.1.150
> no shut
> !
>
> Then it should just work when you issue:
>
> R1: ping vrf TEST 192.168.1.150
>
> S1: ping vrf TEST 192.168.1.1
>
> To make sure the switch supports VRF-lite, ensure you have the correct SDM
> template selected.
> When you enable VRF it already states which image you need. At least the
> 'routing' template supports it.
> You should have no issue when only configuring R1 though. You can test this
> independently.
>
> To change the S1's SDM template issue this in configure mode:
>
> S1: sdm prefer routing
>
> Then save and reload the switch.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Rick Mur
> CCIE2 #21946 (R&S / Service Provider)
> Juniper JNCIA-ER & JNCIA-EX
> MCSA:Messaging, MCSE
> Sr. Support Engineer  IPexpert, Inc.
> URL: http://www.IPexpert.com
>
>
> On 17 aug 2009, at 01:23, Jesse Loggins wrote:
>
> Marko,
>> You are correct "mpls ip" is not a necessary command, neither is the
>> "route-target" command. I included both in case the original poster was
>> experiencing some sort of IOS bug. I am aware of cases where turning on
>> MPLS
>> has caused things to work which would other wise not require it (an
>> obvious
>> bug in the code).
>>
>> --
>> Jesse Loggins
>> CCIE#14661 (R&S, Service Provider)
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Mon Aug 24 2009 - 23:00:38 ART