> -Original Message-
> From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-
> boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Phil Mayers
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 7:38 AM
> To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [j-nsp] Does a L3VPN RR require routing-insta
Including the bgp config would help too.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
On 29/11/11 14:46, Per Granath wrote:
If you are doing route target filtering (family route-target), then you may
need to add the default target on the RRs:
set ... protocols bgp ... family route-target advertise-default
We are not doing route target filtering.
I think I need to re-state my
If you are doing route target filtering (family route-target), then you may
need to add the default target on the RRs:
set ... protocols bgp ... family route-target advertise-default
Cheers.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
htt
et/author/dwinkworth/
From: Phil Mayers
To: Keegan Holley
Cc: "juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net"
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Does a L3VPN RR require routing-instance for each VRF?
On 29/11/11 12:55, Keegan Holley wrote:
> Do you h
On 29/11/11 12:55, Keegan Holley wrote:
Do you have family inet-VPN configured in the group stanza? All the
Yes.
I also have routes in the "inet.3" table matching the next-hops (to
reply to the many people who unicasted me off-list). I have tried both a
static and LDP.
routes are reflecte
Do you have family inet-VPN configured in the group stanza? All the routes are
reflected from the bgp.l3vpn.0 table. You don't have to define each vrf. If you
already configured the address family it sounds like it doesn't like your ext.
communities for some reason.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov
As per subject line: if we want to use a JunOS box (M7i, running 10.4)
as a route-reflector, it seems to reject inet-vpn routes with:
bgp_rcv_nlri: 129.x.x.0:4:193.x.x.0/92 rejected due to the lack of a
valid target community
I was hoping we could avoid the hassle of defining the VRF on the R
8 matches
Mail list logo
