Re: VRF TO GLOBAL PROBLEM

Damian,
I've just changed Marko's sample to leak R2-R4 (192.168.24.0/24, global)
into vrf red and R2-R5 (10.0.25.0/24, vrf red) into global and it works.

@ R2, just:

ip prefix-list R4-Loopback0 seq 20 permit 192.168.24.0/24

(should have changed the list name :)
and red knows the R2-R4.

ip route 10.0.25.0 255.255.255.0 Serial1/0.205

and R2 knows R2-R5 at global.

BTW, the sample uses point to point, so AFAIK there is no need to set
next hops, no need for the global for vrf statics if used.

I can ping from R5 to R2's serial w/o going through R4. That's what is
being looked for, right ?

Marcin,
would you post relevant config ?
-Carlos

Damian Higgins @ 06/01/2011 07:22 -0300 dixit:
> Hi Marko,
>
> That's because in your example you needed reachability only between
> the router's loopbacks. Let's say that R2-R6 10.0.26.0/24 is in global
> and R2-R5 10.0.25.0/24 is into a VRF and you need to have reachability
> between these two subnets. Can you give an example routing between
> these two without having to use R4 ?
>
> Regards.
>
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Marko Milivojevic <markom_at_ipexpert.com> wrote:
>> Please, re-read the article :-). It shows the example of leaking
>> between global table and VRF using BGP - no next hops involved. I had
>> to build to that point though.
>>
>> --
>> Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427
>> Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert
>>
>> FREE CCIE training: http://bit.ly/vLecture
>>
>> Mailto: markom_at_ipexpert.com
>> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
>> Web: http://www.ipexpert.com/
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:14, Damian Higgins <linnewbye_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I don't think your example will help Marcin, you used next-hops, so
>>> you depend on the upstream router to route between global and VRFs.
>>> You can have bidirectional route leaking without next-hops only
>>> between VRFs ( using MP-BGP ) on the same box, but not between global
>>> and a VRF. Although in global you can add directly connected routes (
>>> using exit interface instead of next-hop ) into a VRF, the other way
>>> around doesn't work since you need to specify a next-hop. This is a
>>> very annoying limitation :(.
>>>
>>>
>>> @Marcin, to avoid this limitation I'm using only VRFs for routing on
>>> my 6500's, and I use the global table only for management in case
>>> something goes wrong in the VRFs.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Marko Milivojevic <markom_at_ipexpert.com> wrote:
>>>> Marcin,
>>>>
>>>> I wrote the blog on the subject of the route leaking between VRF and
>>>> the main table sometime ago. I think you will find the solution there:
>>>>
>>>> http://blog.ipexpert.com/2010/12/01/vrf-route-leaking/
>>>>
>>>> Short answer to your last question: yes :-)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427
>>>> Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert
>>>>
>>>> FREE CCIE training: http://bit.ly/vLecture
>>>>
>>>> Mailto: markom_at_ipexpert.com
>>>> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
>>>> Web: http://www.ipexpert.com/
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 06:03, Marcin Zgola <MZgola_at_netrixllc.com> wrote:
>>>>> Problem, I want to be able to communicate between VRF and global on the same router.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can leak routes but I need to specify next hop to be another router.
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically packet hits the router on VRF interface, and then it sends it to upstream router, and upstream router sends it back.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can this be avoided?????
>>>>
>>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Carlos G Mendioroz  <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar>  LW7 EQI  Argentina
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net