[j-nsp] OSPF Sham link question

[Angel Bardarov]

Hi,
Just a hint - can you use domain-id instead of sham-link? Take a look at 
following links if you are concerned about what type of LSA you receive:
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos85/swconfig85-vpns/id-10950345.html#id-10950345
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos85/swconfig85-vpns/id-11192646.html#id-11192646

Angel

David Ball wrote:
>   I've read what docs I can find regarding Sham links for OSPF, but am
> still not seeing what I feel are the expected results.  Here's my
> topology:
>
> cisco2651---T640---T640---M10  (GigE to M10 and Cisco, 10Gig btwn T640s)
>
>   The network between the T640s uses RSVP-signalled LSPs for
> transport, and I've built a VRF between them, adding the Cisco and the
> M10 interfaces to the VRF accordingly.  Cisco and M10 are doing OSPF
> with the routing-instance on the T640s.  Routes originating from M10
> are reaching Cisco, but are still appearing as external routes, which
> isn't what i was expecting (I'm hoping to see them all as intra-area
> routes).  The loopbacks I created on each side of the VRF are being
> advertised by BGP to the far end, but I"m not sure how else to
> troubleshoot the sham links, and whether they're being used or not.
> The config guidelines from juniper.net make it look dead easy, so I'm
> not sure what I'm doing wrong.  This is my first attempt at
> sham-links, so any advice is appreciated.
>
> PtP links to end devices look like this:
> unit 0 {
>     family inet {
>         address 172.16.1.1/30;
>     }
> }
>
> Loopback addresses created like this:
> family inet {
>     filter {
>         input secure-router-shamlink-test;  <-- permits OSPF packets to RE
>     }
>     address 172.16.0.1/32;
> }
>
> Here's how the RI looks on one end (other end looks nearly identical,
> with interfaces and sham-link IPs being the only differences):
> instance-type vrf;
> interface ge-7/2/1.0;
> interface lo0.800;
> vrf-target target:25983:800;
> vrf-table-label;
> protocols {
>     ospf {
>         export shamlink-export-to-ospf;
>         sham-link local 172.16.0.1;
>         area 0.0.0.0 {
>             sham-link-remote 172.16.0.2 metric 1;
>             interface ge-7/2/1.0 {
>                 metric 1;
>             }
>         }
>     }
> }
>
> And here's how the routes are being received at the Cisco:
>
> lab-2651#sho ip route
> Codes: C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
>        D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area
>        N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2
>        E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2
>        i - IS-IS, su - IS-IS summary, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2
>        ia - IS-IS inter area, * - candidate default, U - per-user static route
>        o - ODR, P - periodic downloaded static route
>
> Gateway of last resort is not set
>
> C    172.17.0.0/16 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/1
>      172.16.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 5 subnets, 3 masks
> O E2    172.16.16.0/24 [110/0] via 172.16.2.1, 04:31:29, FastEthernet0/0
> O E2    172.16.1.0/30 [110/0] via 172.16.2.1, 04:31:29, FastEthernet0/0
> O E2    172.16.0.1/32 [110/0] via 172.16.2.1, 04:31:29, FastEthernet0/0
> C       172.16.2.0/30 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/0
> O IA    172.16.0.3/32 [110/11] via 172.16.2.1, 04:31:29, FastEthernet0/0
> C    208.98.239.0/24 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/1
> O E2 192.168.101.0/24 [110/0] via 172.16.2.1, 04:31:30, FastEthernet0/0
> lab-2651#
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>