I'd expect the commit to fail in that scenario. I'd log a TAC case and see what
Cisco says.
On 27/09/18, 10:15, "Randy" <randy_94...@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Christoffer Hansen <c...@nianet.dk>
To: "cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net" <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 2:48 PM
Subject: [c-nsp] IOS-XR accepted duplicate subnet configurations for
interface
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hi,It
is a case of "missing a few check&balances. Happens! I have seen worse!A call
to the TAC will help by the way of a bug-report/fix../Randy
This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not
the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately,
destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose
anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not
designate an information system for the purposes of the Contract and Commercial
Law Act 2017.
_______________________________________________
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/
