<You said> --I have confirmed that in router A, all the routes that are learned via direct peering (CT vrf) are inside premium vrf route table.
--I can confirm that direct connected, static, and customer's BGP routes that are provisioned in router A under premium vrf are being seen under router B under premium vrf. So the issue is only on those routes that are learned via direct peering under CT vrf. Those routes are not advertised to router B premium vrf. Any clue? <Tarique> So how do you leak CT vrf routes into premium vrf on router A, by means of community? These routes certainly won't fall under static, direct or customers bgp (of premium). With the available information, I would still doubt the export policy on router A & import on router B of premium vrf. Though having a look at outputs/config on both sides would help. Thanks & Regards, Tarique A. Nalkhande -----Original Message----- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jimmy Halim Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 2:03 PM To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Cc: ji...@pacnet.net Subject: [j-nsp] Layer 3 VPN Routing and Forwarding (VRF) Tables Issue Hi guys, I have a situation where the PE (router A) is not advertising the routes that they got from direct peering (for example under CT vrf) to other PE (router B) under different vrf (for example premium vrf). I have confirmed that in router A, all the routes that are learned via direct peering (CT vrf) are inside premium vrf route table. It means the import policy is working. The strange thing, thouse routes are not being advertised to premium vrf in router B. I have confirmed there is no problem with export policy in router A and import policy in router B. In router A, under route table bgp.l3vpn.0, I am seeing the route that is learned via direct peering interface. This shouldn't be the case right? ============================== route table bgp.l3vpn.0 61.217.192.0/18 bgp.l3vpn.0: 316803 destinations, 316803 routes (316803 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both 122.122.122.1:9003:61.217.192.0/18 *[BGP/170] 6w6d 21:34:02, MED 100, localpref 250, from 122.5.5.1 AS path: 1334 I to 122.5.5.2 via so-1/2/0.0 ---------> Direct peering interface > to 122.5.5.3 via so-1/3/0.0 ---------> Direct peering interface ============================== I can confirm that direct connected, static, and customer's BGP routes that are provisioned in router A under premium vrf are being seen under router B under premium vrf. So the issue is only on those routes that are learned via direct peering under CT vrf. Those routes are not advertised to router B premium vrf. Any clue? Cheers, Jimmy _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp