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
