Hi Tarique, I have tried it. But it is still not being advertised :(
Regarding my query, for strange reason bgp.l3vpn table in router A is storing the routes that learned via direct BGP peering that being provisioned in router A. I believe this shouldn't be the case. bgp.l3vpn table only should store routes that are learned via other PEs. ================ show route table bgp.l3vpn.0 20.139.160.0/20 bgp.l3vpn.0: 316660 destinations, 316660 routes (316660 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both 1.1.1.1:9001:20.20.0.0/16 ---------> 1.1.1.1:9001 is RT of CT vrf *[BGP/170] 5d 23:44:00, MED 100, localpref 250 AS path: 123 321 I > to 20.20.20.1 via ge-0/2/0.0 ================ So, router A is advertising those routes learned via direct BGP peering under bgp.l3vpn table. There are no routes being advertised out to other PEs under CT vrf table or premium vrf table. Thanks & Regards, Jimmy -----Original Message----- From: Nalkhande Tarique Abbas [mailto:ntari...@juniper.net] Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 6:11 PM To: Jimmy Halim; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Layer 3 VPN Routing and Forwarding (VRF) Tables Issue Hi Jimmy, How about adding another term in your premium-export policy .. term export-CT { from community csr-CT-vrf; then accept; } ... before reject on both the sides. Coming to your query on direct route in bgp.l3vpn table, do you mean this is a direct route from inet.0? Is this BGP peer not under any VRF & at a global level? Thanks & Regards, Tarique A. Nalkhande -----Original Message----- From: Jimmy Halim [mailto:ji...@pacnet.net] Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 2:52 PM To: Nalkhande Tarique Abbas; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Layer 3 VPN Routing and Forwarding (VRF) Tables Issue Hi Tarique, Yes, I am leaking CT crf routes into premium vrf on router A using the community. policy-options policy-statement csr-rib-policy-from-CT-vrf-peer term aloha { from { community csr-CT-vrf; } to rib vrf_premium.inet.0; then { accept; } } ========================== Export policy on router A: routing-instances vrf_premium: instance-type vrf; route-distinguisher 1.1.1.1:9005; vrf-export premium-export; vrf-table-label; ==== policy-options policy-statement premium-export: term add-premium { from protocol [ direct static bgp ]; then { community add rt-premium; accept; } } then reject; ==== community rt-premium: members target:10026:9005; =========================== Import policy on router B: routing-instances vrf_premium: instance-type vrf; route-distinguisher 2:2:2:2:9005; vrf-import premium-import; vrf-table-label; ==== policy-options policy-statement premium-import term add-premium { from community rt-premium; then accept; } then reject; ==== community rt-premium: members target:10026:9005 ======================== By the way, what do you think of the route table bgp.l3vpn.0? Is it correct to say that it shouldn't show the direct peering routes that is provisioned on the same PE? 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 ========================== Cheers, Jimmy -----Original Message----- From: Nalkhande Tarique Abbas [mailto:ntari...@juniper.net] Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 4:55 PM To: Jimmy Halim; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Layer 3 VPN Routing and Forwarding (VRF) Tables Issue <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