[j-nsp] inter-as MPLS/VPN
zhouyifeng
zhuifeng0426 at hotmail.com
Sat Sep 27 11:47:19 EDT 2008
hi all:
Is JUNOS NOT support MP-EBGP that use direct interface as neighbor without enable family mpls at both sides of direct interface because of NON-MPLS enabled interface DON'T transmit labeled packet?
My lab topo is R1(CE)--R2(PE)--R3(P)--R4(PE)--R5(PE)--R6(P)--R7(PE)--R8(CE).R1,R2,R3,R4 are in the same AS, while R5,R6,R7,R8 are in the same AS.
Between R4 and R5 I use MP-EBGP to transit MPLS/VPN traffic. they use direct interface as update-source, and that interface is NOT enabled MPLS. The route gose well in this lab, but I failed to ping R8 from R1, I go though the label from R2 to R7, the only problem is between R4 and R5,here is the output of R4's 'show route 8.8.8.8 detail'
r4.inet.0: 4 destinations, 4 routes (4 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)8.8.8.8/32 (1 entry, 1 announced) *BGP Preference: 170/-101 Route Distinguisher: 65412:7 Next-hop reference count: 6 Source: 5.5.5.5 Next hop: 10.0.45.5 via xxx, selected Label operation: Push 1024 Protocol next hop: 5.5.5.5 Push 1024 Indirect next hop: 85d1200 131073 State: <Secondary Active Ext> Local AS: 65412 Peer AS: 1111 Age: 25:11 Metric2: 1 Task: BGP_1111.5.5.5.5+179 Announcement bits (1): 0-KRT AS path: 1111 I Communities: target:65412:123 VPN Label: 1024 Localpref: 100 Router ID: 5.5.5.5 Primary Routing Table bgp.l3vpn.0
It seems that R4 is pushing label '1024' and put the labeled packet out of it's interface xxx. if R5 receive this label and accept it, the whole path will be fine, and ping test should be success.So I think is the above issue cause ping failed, I wonder if my opinion is right?
By the way, I made a test use multihop MP-EBGP between R4 and R5 with loopback interface as update-source, and enable MPLS on direct connected interface. I successed made ping from R1 to R8.
thanks!
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 中文网,最新时尚生活资讯,白领聚集门户。
http://cn.msn.com
More information about the juniper-nsp
mailing list