For the traffic to be encrypted, the BGP nexthop has to point into the
tunnel which means one of the below:
1/ BGP has to run inside the tunnel, or
2/ You have to have a BGP import policy to change the nexthop to
tunnel's remote address. If this is eBGP, then also add
"accept-remote-nexthop" knob.
HTH
Thanks
Alex
On 17/12/2013 16:08, Scott Harvanek wrote:
So this works to establish the tunnels, the problem is, BGP received
routes over the tunnel do not function correctly. The routes are
properly installed in the VRF but traffic to those destinations does
not pass correctly. Does anyone have any experience running BGP like
this on the m-series or does it just not work on next-hop-style?
Thanks,
-SH
On 11/12/13, 1:34 PM, Scott Harvanek wrote:
Yep excellent, I'll give it a whirl, thanks!
Scott H.
On 11/12/13, 1:24 PM, Alex Arseniev wrote:
So, if I understand Your requirement, You want sp-0/0/0.<unit> in
VRF, correct?
And outgoing GE interface in inet.0?
And where the decrypted packets should be placed, inet.0 or VRF?
And where from the to-be-ecrypted packets should arrive, from inet.0
or VRF?
If the answer is "correct/inet.0/VRF/VRF" then migrate to
next-hop-style IPSec and place inside sp-* unit into the VRF leaving
outside sp-* unit in inet.0.
HTH
Thanks
Alex
On 12/11/2013 16:35, Scott Harvanek wrote:
Alex,
Yea, tried this but it looks like you can't set it to the default
inet.0 instance, only to things different... the local gw in my
case is in the default instance and I want the service interface in
another so unless I'm mistaken it's in default by default and this
fails?
Scott H.
On 11/12/13, 11:22 AM, Alex Arseniev wrote:
Yes
[edit]
aarseniev@m120# set services service-set SS1 ipsec-vpn-options
local-gateway ?
Possible completions:
<address> Local gateway address
routing-instance Name of routing instance that hosts local
gateway <=====!!!! CHECK THIS OUT!!!
aarseniev@m120> show version
Hostname: m120
Model: m120
JUNOS Base OS boot [10.4S7.1]
HTH
Thanks
Alex
On 12/11/2013 16:05, Scott Harvanek wrote:
Anyone with any ideas on this?
Scott H.
On 11/9/13, 12:58 PM, Scott Harvanek wrote:
Is there a way to build a IPSec tunnel / service interface where
the local gateway is NOT in the same routing-instance as the
service interface?
Here's what I'm trying to do;
[ router A (SRX) ] == Switch / IS-IS mesh == [ router B m10i ]
[ st0.0 / VRF ] ================= [ sp-0/0/0.0 / VRF ]
The problem is, I want sp-0/0/0.0 on router B in a VRF but NOT
the outside interface on router B, I cannot commit unless the
outside/local-gateway on the IPSec tunnel is in the same
routing-instance as the service interface, is there a way around
this? The SRX devices can do this without issue.
service-set XXXX {
interface-service {
service-interface sp-0/0/0.0; <-- want this in a VRF
}
ipsec-vpn-options {
local-gateway x.x.x.x; <-- default routing instance
}
ipsec-vpn-rules XXXX
}
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
