[c-nsp] Route Leaking and next-hop recursion

[Sami Joseph]

That made it work but i need to understand the reason?

Sam

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 3:05 AM, Peter Rathlev <peter at rathlev.dk> wrote:

> On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 00:59 +0300, Sami Joseph wrote:
> <cut>
> > *interface Vlan20*
> > *ip address 10.5.5.73 255.255.255.248*
> >
> <cut>
> > *int vlan40*
> > *ip vrf forwarding 3G*
> > *ip address 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.252*
> >
> > Then I want the routes inside this VRF to access the IP addresses behind
> > VLAN20 as depicted in the diagram : (1.1.1.10 and 1.1.1.11)
> >
> > So I need to do leaking from global to vrf and the path back from vrf to
> > global:
> >
> > *ip route vrf 3G 1.1.1.10 255.255.255.255 10.5.5.74 global*
> >
> > And: (assuming the networks on the yellow cloud are 8.8.8.0)
> >
> > *ip route 8.8.8.0 255.255.255.0 vlan40*
> >
> > This way, I guaranteed that packets destined from the VRF to global will
> go
> > to their next-hop which is directly connected to the switch (10.5.5.74)
> and
> > I suppose route recursion should be able to find where the next-hop is.
> >
> > When we opened a ticket for this, we were told that with this setup, CEF
> is
> > not going to be able to create a valid adjacency and so an arp request
> will
> > be sent for each packet destined to 10.5.5.74 without a reply.
> >
> > Why cant CEF install an entry for 10.5.5.74, why cant route recursion
> work?
>
> Just a shot in the dark, but would it help to add an interface to the
> vrf route statement? Like this:
>
> ip route vrf 3G 1.1.1.10 255.255.255.255 Vlan20 10.5.5.74 global
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>
>
>