Hello, we have a MPLS enabled network with LDP as signaling protol and some L3VPNs. In one of those VRF, for test purposes I need to route some hosts through an alternate path to the destination compared to the rest of the network. Therefore i configured a static-label-switched-path with preference 10 so that the static LSP isn't prefered over the LDP-signaled one. The intermediate routers on the alternate path are also configured as transit for the static-label-switched-path. Afterwards i configured a static host-route on the ingress router in the said VRF with a static-lsp-next-hop
# show protocols mpls ~ static-label-switched-path TEST_LSP { ingress { next-hop <ip of next-hop router>; preference 10; to <egress router>; push 1000001; } } ~ # show routing-instances VRF-XXX routing-options static route x.x.x.x/32 { static-lsp-next-hop TEST_LSP; } The /32 route shows in the inet.0 table for the VRF, but a ping to the destination wasn't successful. # run show route x.x.x.x/32 VRF-XXX.inet.0: 4844 destinations, 19356 routes (4844 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both x.x.x.x/32 *[Static/5] 00:00:09 > to <egress router> via ae0.0, Push 1000001 During closer investigation with "show route detail", i found that there is no VPN label for the host route. VRF-XXX.inet.0: 4844 destinations, 19356 routes (4844 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) x.x.x.x/32 (1 entry, 1 announced) *Static Preference: 5 Next hop type: Router, Next hop index: 618 Address: 0x67b2aec Next-hop reference count: 5 Next hop: <ip of next-hop router> via ae0.0 weight 0x1, selected Label operation: Push 1000001 Label TTL action: prop-ttl Load balance label: Label 1000001: None; Label element ptr: 0xc4bee80 Label parent element ptr: 0x0 Label element references: 1 Label element child references: 0 Label element lsp id: 0 Session Id: 0x1c5 State: <Active Int Ext> Age: 28 Validation State: unverified Task: RT Announcement bits (3): 0-KRT 2-Resolve tree 3 3-rt-export AS path: I All static-route examples i found used lsp-next-hop only in default routing-instance and not in a VRF. I would be interested in whether it can be configured that way and if not, how can i do such nasty kind of traffic engineering Regards, Alex _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp