Hello,
we have a problem with a IPv6 route in the lab, which is hidden for us. What
could be the reason for that? In the most documents we can only find
information around next-hop unusable but this does not seem to be the
reason for us.
Following excerpt has been grabbed from one of our
A router of my acquaintance in Toronto has:
jab...@agg01.tor-switch show version | grep Base
JUNOS Base OS boot [8.5R4.3]
JUNOS Base OS Software Suite [8.5R4.3]
jab...@agg01.tor-switch
and also
routing-options {
static {
route 69.165.166.240/28 next-hop [ 69.165.167.156
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:02:31AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
A router of my acquaintance in Toronto has:
load-balance per-packet;
The idea is to do some crude load-sharing of outbound traffic from this
router towards 69.165.166.240/28. Both 69.165.167.156 69.165.167.20 are
Hi all,
I am attempting to test out an L2VPN that connects two GE interfaces on two
separate J2320 routers via MPLS over GRE. I have the MPLS tunnel up and
working and can ping using the 'ping mpls l2vpn' command. My problem is when I
connect my devices to each GE port on the 2320s, I am
Hello,
thanks for your comment!
We are not using a RR at the edge of this scenario but the problem is
located on another location.
1. The routes are received from a RR and advertised to one of our core
systems.
2. From here the routes are propageted to our iBGP which is IPv6
enabled.
I assume that the related protocol and indirect forwarding next hops are
reachable?
I'd issue a show route resolution unresolved just to be sure.
Is there any chance you have an import policy filtering that route? IIRC,
import route filters result in a hidden routes.
[edit]
regr...@vpn04#
Hi,
You should really do
show route forwarding-table destination 69.165.166.240/28 detail|extensive
show route only shows the RPD's (routing process) view of the route.
Load balancing policy is applied when the routes are installed in the
kernel forwarding-table (same as PFE
7 matches
Mail list logo
