Dear c-nsp fellows, I am not sure if any one of you would have an answer the the below example...
I have recently run into a case with an ASR9k router running IOS-XR v5.3.4. Were I by accident put an identical secondary subnet on a 2nd interface located inside the same VRF as the first one. It is even a 2nd sub-interface to another sub-interface on the same main interface. Case-in-point: The router accepted the configuration commit without complaints and of course traffic then stops flowing. Normally I would not expect this to be possible to do. And would expect the router to output a warning telling me I am trying to commit an IPv4 address|subnet already configured on another interface in the same VRF. Q: Would you expect (1) a warning in my scenario or (2) the router just accepting the staged configuration change upon commit? ```iosxr !!! 1st-subinterface ! interface GigabitEthernet666/0/0/2.1478 !!nvSatellite interface vrf ROUTING-INSTANCE-INTERNET ipv4 mtu 1500 ipv4 address 198.51.100.1 255.255.255.252 ipv4 address 203.0.113.1 255.255.255.252 secondary ipv4 verify unicast source reachable-via any allow-default encapsulation dot1q 1478 ! !!! 2nd sub-interface ! interface GigabitEthernet666/0/0/2.665 !!nvSatellite interface vrf ROUTING-INSTANCE-INTERNET ipv4 mtu 1500 ipv4 address 192.0.2.1 255.255.255.252 ipv4 address 203.0.113.1 255.255.255.252 secondary !!committed line ipv4 verify unicast source reachable-via any allow-default encapsulation dot1q 665 ! ``` -Christoffer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/