Hi, thanks for all the suggestions I have now changed the route-map are things are looking good. 5.14.93.0/24 is the route in question. In PE2, local pref can now be seen as 90
PE1#show ip bgp vpnv4 rd 894:1 BGP table version is 258, local router ID is 5.14.95.243 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal, r RIB-failure, S Stale Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path Route Distinguisher: 894:1 (default for vrf ipvpn_00000001) *> 5.14.89.1/32 0.0.0.0 0 32768 ? *>i5.14.89.2/32 5.14.95.244 0 100 0 ? *> 5.14.93.0 5.14.93..222 0 100 0 65535 i PE2#show ip bgp vpnv4 rd 894:1 BGP table version is 285, local router ID is 5.14.95.244 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal, r RIB-failure, S Stale Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path Route Distinguisher: 894:1 (default for vrf ipvpn_00000001) *>i5.14.89.1/32 5.14.95.243 0 100 0 ? *> 5.14.89.2/32 0..0.0.0 0 32768 ? *>i5.14.93.0 5.14.95.243 0 100 0 65535 i * 5.14.93.226 0 90 0 65535 i <------------------------------------------------- =========================================================== Going on from this, if I now check the routing installed in the vrf for 5.14.93.0/24, it seems to be installed in PE1 (with high local pref as expected) PE1#sh ip route vrf ipvpn_00000001 Routing Table: ipvpn_00000001 5.14.89.0/32 is subnetted, 2 subnets B 5.14.89.1 is directly connected, 19:44:47, Loopback2 B 5.14.89.2 [200/0] via 5.14.95.244, 19:43:47 5.14.93.0/24 is variably subnetted, 3 subnets, 3 masks B 5.14.93.0/24 [20/0] via 5.14.93.222, 00:02:42 <---------------------------------------- C 5.14.93.220/30 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet3/48 L 5.14.93.221/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet3/48 However in PE2, there is no route to 5.14.93.0/24 PE2#sh ip route vrf ipvpn_00000001 Routing Table: ipvpn_00000001 5.14.89.0/32 is subnetted, 2 subnets B 5.14.89.1 [200/0] via 5.14.95.243, 00:42:11 B 5.14.89.2 is directly connected, 19:47:26, Loopback2 5.14.93.0/24 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks C 5..14.93.224/30 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet3/48 L 5.14.93.225/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet3/48 If I change the local pref in PE2 from 90 to 110 for example, then PE2 becomes the primary route and the exact opposite happens, i.e. the 5.14.93.0/24 route is installed in PE2 and does not exist in PE1; is this normal behaviour? Regards Mark ----- Original Message ---- From: Luan Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Mark Tech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; David Freedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 8:03:38 PM Subject: RE: [c-nsp] IP-VPN CE-PE local pref problem Try changing the route-map to: route-map ipvpn_00000001 permit 10 set extcommunity soo 894:1 set local-preference 90 instead of: route-map ipvpn_00000001 permit 10 set extcommunity soo 894:1 route-map ipvpn_00000001 permit 20 set local-preference 90 Luan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Luan Nguyen Senior Network Engineer Chesapeake NetCraftsmen, LLC. www.NetCraftsmen.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Tech Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 2:55 PM To: David Freedman; [email protected] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IP-VPN CE-PE local pref problem Here you go PE1#sh ip bgp vpnv4 rd 894:1 5.14.93.0 BGP routing table entry for 894:1:5.14.93.0/24, version 222 Paths: (3 available, best #2, table ipvpn_00000001) Advertised to update-groups: 1 65535 5.14.95.244 (metric 11) from 5.14.95.244 (5.14.95.244) Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal Extended Community: SoO:894:1 RT:894:2 mpls labels in/out 26/23 65535 5.14.93.222 from 5.14.93.222 (5.14.93.253) Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, external, best Extended Community: SoO:894:1 RT:894:2 mpls labels in/out 26/nolabel 65535, (received-only) 5.14.93.222 from 5.14.93.222 (5.14.93.253) Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, external mpls labels in/out 26/nolabel PE2#sh ip bgp vpnv4 rd 894:1 5.14.93.0 BGP routing table entry for 894:1:5.14.93.0/24, version 237 Paths: (3 available, best #1, table ipvpn_00000001) Advertised to update-groups: 1 65535 5.14.93.226 from 5.14.93.226 (5..14.93.254) Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, external, best Extended Community: SoO:894:1 RT:894:2 mpls labels in/out 23/nolabel 65535, (received-only) 5.14.93.226 from 5.14.93.226 (5.14.93.254) Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, external mpls labels in/out 23/nolabel 65535 5.14.95.243 (metric 11) from 5.14.95.243 (5.14.95.243) Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal Extended Community: SoO:894:1 RT:894:2 mpls labels in/out 23/26 inbound route-map from CE2 to PE2 route-map ipvpn_00000001 permit 10 set extcommunity soo 894:1 route-map ipvpn_00000001 permit 20 set local-preference 90 ! ----- Original Message ---- From: David Freedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 5:51:55 PM Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IP-VPN CE-PE local pref problem can you post "show ip bgp vpnv4 rd <rd> x.x.x.x/y" from both PEs ? for the prefix in question? Dave Mark Tech wrote: > Hi > I have set up a dual homed IP-VPN network between 2 PE's and 2 CE's using SoO - thas all working fine. I have added an inbound route-map to the 'backup' PE and CE to reduce the local preference in order to make the other PE and CE the preferred gateways. > > CE1--------PE1 primary > | | > CE2--------PE2 backup > > The CE local pref works fine, however on the PE side, local pref doesn't seem to have any affect, i.e. I have reduced the local pref to 90 on the backup link, however if I check the routing in the backup PE, nothing seems to have changed. Can I just check that local pref actually works across an MP-BGP environment? > > If so I must be doing something wrong > > Regards > > Mark > > > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
