[j-nsp] Does a L3VPN RR require routing-instance for each VRF?

[Derick Winkworth]

You don't need to define any VRFs.  I'll post a config later.

You don't need static routes for each PE either, you can just have a default route to discard in inet.3 and it'll work.


 
Derick Winkworth
CCIE #15672 (RS, SP), JNCIE-M #721
http://packetpushers.net/author/dwinkworth/


________________________________
 From: Phil Mayers <p.mayers at imperial.ac.uk>
To: Keegan Holley <keegan.holley at sungard.com> 
Cc: "juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net" <juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net> 
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Does a L3VPN RR require routing-instance for each VRF?
 
On 29/11/11 12:55, Keegan Holley wrote:
> Do you have family inet-VPN configured in the group stanza? All the

Yes.

I also have routes in the "inet.3" table matching the next-hops (to reply to the many people who unicasted me off-list). I have tried both a static and LDP.

> routes are reflected from the bgp.l3vpn.0 table. You don't have to

This does not occur unless I define a routing-instance. In fact, with no routing-instance defined, the "bgp.l3vpn.0" table is simply absent.

> define each vrf. If you already configured the address family it
> sounds like it doesn't like your ext. communities for some reason.

Where would the ext. communities come from if I haven't defined a routing-instance?
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp