[c-nsp] Another bughunt, this time VRF PBR

[David Freedman]

I can only now laugh at 12.4(24)T1 ,

*Sep 29 14:05:08.219: VT[Vi3]:Applying config commands on process
"VTEMPLATE Background Mgr" (187)
*Sep 29 14:05:08.219: VT[Vi3]:ip vrf receive TEST
*Sep 29 14:05:08.219: VT[Vi3]:no ip redirects
*Sep 29 14:05:08.219: VT[Vi3]:no ip unreachables
*Sep 29 14:05:08.223: VT[Vi3]:ip policy route-map TEST
*Sep 29 14:05:08.223: VT[Vi3]:no logging event link-status
*Sep 29 14:05:08.223: VT[Vi3]:no snmp trap link-status
*Sep 29 14:05:08.223: VT[Vi3]:end
*Sep 29 14:05:08.235: VT:Messages from (un)cloning Vi3:
% Need to enable Policy Based Routing on the interface first

completely ignoring the order I specified in radius (pbr first, vrf
receive second).

So that is three distinct bugs now, all in the latest releases. Shame.

Dave.


David Freedman wrote:
> Hah, SRD2a is even odder, refuses to even install the per-user vrf static!
> 
> This has however enabled me to home in on CSCsu33006 which sounds more
> likely, but it claims to be fixed in SRC4 and SRD which is annoying.
> 
> Dave.
> 
> 
> David Freedman wrote:
>> Have just tried with another live box running SRD (the original SRD) -
>> exactly the same story.
>>
>> Does anybody know if this is supported or not? I'm not seeing any
>> documentation which suggests it is not.
>>
>> David.
>>
>> David Freedman wrote:
>>> Yes, I woul absolutely love to, believe me :)
>>> Need to make sure nobody steps in at this point and claims that this is unsupported, if it is then am happy
>>> to move it to SR and away from 12.4(T) completely.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>> David Freedman
>>> Group Network Engineering 
>>> Claranet Limited
>>> http://www.clara.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Justin Shore [mailto:justin at justinshore.com]
>>> Sent: Mon 9/28/2009 04:06
>>> To: David Freedman
>>> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Another bughunt, this time VRF PBR
>>>  
>>> David Freedman wrote:
>>>> wonder if anybody has come across this before,
>>>>
>>>> in 12.4(15)T, configuring a virtual-access per-user such:
>>> I hate to suggest the obvious but since there are so many bugs in 
>>> 12.4(15)T have you considered bumping that to the latest minor rev?  I 
>>> think they're up to T7 or T8 now (must have been some bug list).
>>>
>>> Justin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>