[j-nsp] IS-IS database leaking across virtual routers?

[Stefan Fouant]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-
> bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Clarke Morledge
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 5:31 PM
> To: Alan Gravett
> Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] IS-IS database leaking across virtual routers?
> 
> Alan,
> 
> Actually, I did implement your workaround before with the static host
> mapping.  But that is rather cosmetic when compared to something like the
> overload bit.  In theory (or at least, in *my* theory), setting the IS-IS
> overload bit in one virtual routing instance should not interfere with
> IS-IS in another virtual routing instance.
> 
> Unfortunately, the observed behavior on the MX platform suggests some form
> of leaking.  I'm just not entirely convinced now that a "virtual router"
> really means a separate link-state database per virtual router.  Within
> this context, a virtual router should behave just like a physical router
> --- or like a logical router, for that matter.
> 
> Am I mistaken here?

Hey Clarke,

Sorry, I'm just getting around to reading this now.  I would say you are
correct in your understanding of the way that VRs are supposed to work -
routes/TLVs/etc. in one VR should not be leaking into the other.  I'm
curious, how are you mapping the traffic into their respective VRs?  Are
these separate and distinct physical interfaces which are bound to their
respect VRs or are you using some form of VLAN tagging and mapping unique
VLANs into a given VR?  Is there any chance you have any type of rib-groups
or some other type of vrf-import/export policy in place that might be
causing some unintended behavior?  Care to share some of your configuration?

All the best,

Stefan Fouant, CISSP, JNCIEx2
www.shortestpathfirst.net
GPG Key ID: 0xB5E3803D