Are all of these interfaces on the same chassis? If so you are routing
connected subnets which will cause problems.
ip route vrf test1 200.200.200.0 255.255.255.0 10.10.10.2
ip route vrf test2 100.100.100.0 255.255.255.0 10.10.10.1
Both of these subnets are connected and should be redistributed by BGP.
Am I interpreting this correctly?
Regards
Duane de Witt
Network Engineer
Siemens Business Services
Tel. +27 11 380 4740
Fax. +27 11 380 4710
-----Original Message-----
From: Tay Chee Yong [mailto:tcy@pacific.net.sg]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 12:38 PM
To: Duane de Witt
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [nsp] Configuring VPN Routing/Forwarding
Hi Duane,
Here is my configuration, and some "show" statistics.
Please advise.
interface FastEthernet0/0
no ip address
duplex auto
speed auto
!
interface FastEthernet0/0.1
encapsulation isl 1
ip vrf forwarding test2
ip address 200.200.200.1 255.255.255.0
no ip redirects
!
interface FastEthernet0/0.2
encapsulation isl 2
ip vrf forwarding test2
ip address 10.10.10.2 255.255.255.0
no ip redirects
!
interface Serial0/0
ip vrf forwarding test1
ip address 192.168.100.1 255.255.255.252
no fair-queue
clockrate 2000000
!
interface FastEthernet0/1
no ip address
duplex auto
speed auto
!
interface FastEthernet0/1.1
encapsulation isl 1
ip vrf forwarding test1
ip address 100.100.100.1 255.255.255.0
no ip redirects
!
interface FastEthernet0/1.2
encapsulation isl 2
ip vrf forwarding test1
ip address 10.10.10.1 255.255.255.0
no ip redirects
!
interface Serial0/1
ip vrf forwarding test2
ip address 192.168.10.1 255.255.255.252
clockrate 2000000
!
ip route vrf test1 200.200.200.0 255.255.255.0 10.10.10.2
ip route vrf test2 100.100.100.0 255.255.255.0 10.10.10.1
Router#traceroute vrf test1 200.200.200.1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 200.200.200.1
1 * * *
2 *
Router#sh ip route vrf test1 stati
Router#sh ip route vrf test1 static
S 200.200.200.0/24 [1/0] via 10.10.10.2
Regards,
Cheeyong
At 12:03 PM 2/11/02 +0200, Duane de Witt wrote:
>Try injecting the routes into both VRF's. If you do a traceroute vrf
you
>should see that the routing tables are causing the packets to take that
>path.
>
>Regards
>
>Duane de Witt
>Network Engineer
>Siemens Business Services
>Tel. +27 11 380 4740
>Fax. +27 11 380 4710
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tay Chee Yong [mailto:tcy@pacific.net.sg]
>Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 12:03 PM
>To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
>Subject: [nsp] Configuring VPN Routing/Forwarding
>
>Hi there,
>
>Have anyone out there configured the above with any of your customers
or
>
>clients??
>
>I have this scenario over here, and need some advise.
>
> vrf1 | | vrf2
> S1/0 | | S1/1
> ---------------------------
> | Cisco 7206 |
> ---------------------------
> F1/0 | | F2/0
> vrf1 | | vrf 2
>
>I had configured 2 vrf on the router, as shown above. It seems that
>whenever I want to reach F2/0 from F1/0, it will always go out by S1/0,
>and
>returned by S1/1 before reaching F2/0. This is bad, as it would consume
>the
>WAN Link's bandwidth. I would like to have the inter-vrf traffic to be
>within the router. Any advise from you guys out there??
>
>Really appreciate it.
>
>Regards,
>Cheeyong
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:13:32 EDT