Re: route leaking from global to vrf when there is no VRF interfaces. posted 11/16/2008
- Subject: Re: route leaking from global to vrf when there is no VRF interfaces.
- From: Tien <tientien.wang@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 04:33:34 -1000
- Cc: ccielab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=5Jqj31TvE133yK8SfLAHlQDHPp9I1Ct1949JYzUNzLA=; b=ILyKIQh6tWiSQ4M2Ra7mh47bdLPplUfpdGX7gV4PunF0zPyWVCKSlo3hocLp0M7m3P suIi6nAIOuxLpdxfkmbVVm1OgzaT09eqeI//1fdLWk0TYiLIuZ1cJa8INY7tHZ1pwDdO 7nfsVszU962fstv2fC1sriTQYGAC+EqjkPBu8=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=gulVkT33Q9PY5g8h2bMR4OAO0M7npFbSrfyhp5qn/cuTp+H61vOf6KltluoVWy/WTF e69ZCmGVgVfOuZPvDfnzqg62D2blhQQkpmhI9olMNEdsy+qjscBMobNjHOq6ATF4m2MD S9um84PcjN1ztsGfM9AIVU/cb3QK0ofD7wQDA=
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I think this is what you want?
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Carlos Trujillo <
> HI group.
> Im having a simple MPLS VPN scenario between PE4s:
> 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
> 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?
> # 21813 R&S
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> Subscription information may be found at: