If this becomes an inter-area type-3 LSA, the remote PE-CE will always prefer the on-demand back-up link. If this is correct, then I don't see the point of a sham-link. >From my tests this has worked as designed, if all routers are configured with the same area with a sham-link between PE-PE then the LSA stays as a type-1.
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos84/swconfig84-vpns/id-10939238.html#id-10939238 On Dec 7, 2007 3:13 AM, Daniel Lete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Sergio, > In the PE where the CE is connected to, LSA Type-1 from CE should be seen > as > LSA Type-1 > > In the remote PE, LSA Type-1 from that same CE should be seen as LSA > Type-3 > (inter-area) > > Daniel > > Sergio D. wrote: > > But you should at least be learning the loopbacks from each side as a > > type-1 LSA. > > How are these routes showing on the PEs "show route protocol ospf table > > sham-link-test" ? I think I missed that output or sorry if it was > already > > mentioned. > > > > > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:04:03 +0000 > > From: Daniel Lete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] OSPF Sham link question > > To: David Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > Hello David, > > Your comment below: > > > (NB: is it normal that the routes PE2 is learning from the m10 are > > 'Extern' ?) > > > > may not be related at all with sham links or even with rfc2547/rfc4364. > If > > you > > are injecting prefixes into OSPF (redistribute in Cisco or export in > > Juniper) > > in your CE, then those prefixes will appear as LSA Type-5 (external if > you > > want). > > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > David Ball wrote: > >> Should have mentioned earlier (in case it's relevant), the reason > >> for sham-link requirement is that there 'will' be a slow backup link > >> between the cisco and the m10, but it'll be direct, so the cisco and > >> m10 will think that's the better link (due to intra-area). So, was > >> hoping to use sham-link across T640s to bring things closer to 'par' > >> and have those routes appear as intra-area and ultimately prefer the > >> sham-link. > >> I was, but am no longer, explicitly exporting routes from BGP into > >> OSPF on the PEs. As requested, more configs and show cmd output > >> included. I appreciate the feedback so far by the way....thanks > >> again. > >> > >> m10's loopback is 172.16.0.3 > >> cisco's loopback is 172.16.0.4 > >> > >> Pertinent configs from PE1 (T640 facing Cisco): > >> lo0 { > >> unit 800 { > >> description "sham-link testing"; > >> family inet { > >> filter { > >> input secure-router-shamlink-test; > >> } > >> address 172.16.0.2/32; > >> } > >> } > >> } > >> > >> ge-7/0/0 { <---- int facing Cisco > >> unit 0 { > >> family inet { > >> address 172.16.2.1/30; > >> } > >> } > >> } > >> > >> sham-link-test { > >> instance-type vrf; > >> interface ge-7/0/0.0; > >> interface lo0.800; > >> vrf-target target:25983:800; > >> vrf-table-label; > >> protocols { > >> ospf { > >> sham-link local 172.16.0.2; > >> area 0.0.0.0 { > >> sham-link-remote 172.16.0.1 metric 1; > >> interface ge-7/0/0.0 { > >> metric 1; > >> } > >> } > >> } > >> } > >> } > >> > >> > >> Pertinent configs from PE2 (T640 facing M10): > >> > >> lo0 { > >> unit 800 { > >> description "sham-link test"; > >> family inet { > >> filter { > >> input secure-router-shamlink-test; > >> } > >> address 172.16.0.1/32; > >> } > >> } > >> } > >> > >> ge-7/2/1 { <--------facing m10 > >> unit 0 { > >> family inet { > >> address 172.16.1.1/30; > >> } > >> } > >> } > >> > >> sham-link-test { > >> instance-type vrf; > >> interface ge-7/2/1.0; > >> interface lo0.800; > >> vrf-target target:25983:800; > >> vrf-table-label; > >> protocols { > >> ospf { > >> sham-link local 172.16.0.1; > >> area 0.0.0.0 { > >> sham-link-remote 172.16.0.2 metric 1; > >> interface ge-7/2/1.0 { > >> metric 1; > >> } > >> } > >> } > >> } > >> } > >> > >> OSPF neighbors as seen from PE1: > >>> show ospf neighbor instance sham-link-test > >> Address Interface State ID Pri > > Dead > >> 172.16.2.2 ge-7/0/0.0 Full 172.16.0.4 1 > > 36 > >> OSPF neighbors as seen from PE2: > >>> show ospf neighbor instance sham-link-test > >> Address Interface State ID Pri > > Dead > >> 172.16.1.2 ge-7/2/1.0 Full 172.16.0.3 128 > > 31 > >> Proof that PE1 is learning PE2's loopback via BGP: > >>> show route table sham-link-test > >> sham-link-test.inet.0: 9 destinations, 9 routes (9 active, 0 holddown, > 0 > > hidden) > >> + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both > >> > >> 172.16.0.1/32 *[BGP/170] 12:43:03, localpref 100, from 1.7.1.43 > >> AS path: I > >> > to 1.7.2.18 via ge-0/2/0.0, label-switched-path > >> NCP-LSP-00819-005-043 > >> to 1.7.2.1 via ge-0/0/0.0, label-switched-path > >> NCP-LSP-00819-005-043 > >> 172.16.0.2/32 *[Direct/0] 20:29:55 > >> > via lo0.800 > >> > >> Proof that PE2 is learning PE1's loopback via BGP: > >>> show route table sham-link-test > >> sham-link-test.inet.0: 9 destinations, 9 routes (9 active, 0 holddown, > 0 > > hidden) > >> + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both > >> > >> 172.16.0.1/32 *[Direct/0] 21:04:41 > >> > via lo0.800 > >> 172.16.0.2/32 *[BGP/170] 18:50:17, localpref 100, from 1.7.1.5 > >> AS path: I > >> > to 1.7.2.17 via ge-0/2/0.0, label-switched-path > >> NCP-LSP-00829-043-005 > >> to 1.7.2.5 via ge-0/0/0.0, label-switched-path > >> NCP-LSP-00829-043-005 > >> > >> OSPF database according to PE1 (Cisco isn't sending much/anything...my > >> current goal is for the Cisco to learn what the m10 sends, then I'll > >> move on): > >>> show ospf database instance sham-link-test > >> OSPF link state database, Area 0.0.0.0 > >> Type ID Adv Rtr Seq Age Opt Cksum > > Len > >> Router *172.16.0.2 172.16.0.2 0x80000037 876 0x22 > 0xfdff > > 36 > >> Router 172.16.0.4 172.16.0.4 0x80000029 1111 0x22 > 0xa757 > > 36 > >> Network 172.16.2.2 172.16.0.4 0x80000022 1372 0x22 > 0x9a80 > > 32 > >> > >> OSPF database according to PE2: > >>> show ospf database instance sham-link-test > >> OSPF link state database, Area 0.0.0.0 > >> Type ID Adv Rtr Seq Age Opt Cksum > > Len > >> Router *172.16.0.1 172.16.0.1 0x80000024 1912 0x22 > 0x1ef6 > > 36 > >> Router 172.16.0.3 172.16.0.3 0x80000425 735 0x22 > 0xc475 > > 48 > >> Network 172.16.1.2 172.16.0.3 0x8000002e 435 0x22 > 0x7b97 > > 32 > >> OpaqArea 1.0.0.1 172.16.0.3 0x80000413 1335 0x22 > 0xaeea > > 28 > >> OSPF AS SCOPE link state database > >> Type ID Adv Rtr Seq Age Opt Cksum > > Len > >> Extern 172.16.16.0 172.16.0.3 0x80000034 1035 0x22 > 0xbf33 > > 36 > >> Extern 192.168.101.0 172.16.0.3 0x80000036 135 0x22 > 0xe40a > > 36 > >> (NB: is it normal that the routes PE2 is learning from the m10 are > > 'Extern' ?) > >> Here is Cisco's current routing table (learning nothing via OSPF): > >> lab-2651#sho ip route > >> Codes: C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP > >> D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area > >> N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2 > >> E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2 > >> i - IS-IS, su - IS-IS summary, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS > > level-2 > >> ia - IS-IS inter area, * - candidate default, U - per-user > static > > route > >> o - ODR, P - periodic downloaded static route > >> > >> Gateway of last resort is not set > >> > >> C 172.17.0.0/16 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/1 > >> 172.16.0.0/30 is subnetted, 1 subnets > >> C 172.16.2.0 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/0 > >> C 208.98.239.0/24 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/1 > >> lab-2651# > >> > >> > >> Here is M10's inet.0 routing table: > >>> show route > >> inet.0: 10 destinations, 10 routes (10 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) > >> Restart Complete > >> + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both > >> > >> 0.0.0.0/0 *[Static/5] 5w4d 23:37:59 > >> Reject > >> 172.16.0.3/32 *[Direct/0] 2w0d 19:06:21 > >> > via lo0.0 > >> 172.16.1.0/30 *[Direct/0] 21:05:30 > >> > via ge-0/1/0.0 > >> 172.16.1.2/32 *[Local/0] 21:05:30 > >> Local via ge-0/1/0.0 > >> 172.16.16.0/24 *[Static/5] 21:02:54 > >> Discard > >> 192.168.8.0/24 *[Static/5] 5w4d 23:37:59 > >> > to 192.168.101.252 via fxp0.0 > >> 192.168.9.0/24 *[Static/5] 5w4d 23:37:59 > >> > to 192.168.101.252 via fxp0.0 > >> 192.168.101.0/24 *[Direct/0] 5w4d 23:37:59 > >> > via fxp0.0 > >> 192.168.101.33/32 *[Local/0] 5w4d 23:37:59 > >> Local via fxp0.0 > >> 224.0.0.5/32 *[OSPF/10] 5w4d 23:38:00, metric 1 > >> MultiRecv > >> > >> > >> > >> On 05/12/2007, Peter E. Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: Daniel Lete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> > >>> [...] > >>>> In relation to your sham-link. You need a loopback IP > >>>> within your VRF to act as source/destination of the sham > >>>> link and these loopbacks are NOT to be announced to your > >>>> CE. > >>> I was going to make that point -- that is, I would not > >>> expect to see: > >>> > >>>> O IA 172.16.0.3/32 [110/11] via 172.16.2.1, 04:31:29, > >>> FastEthernet0/0 > >>> > >>> ...(although I could be wrong -- I don't get many looks into > >>> CPE). Also, I'd expect the sham-link neighbor to show up on > >>> the PE. You can see them on Cisco PEs, for instance: > >>> > >>> CiscoPE#show ip ospf [process] neighbor > >>> > >>> Neighbor ID Pri State Dead Time Address > >>> Interface > >>> [...] > >>> [Remote ID IP] 0 FULL/ - - [Remote LB > >>> IP] OSPF_SLn > >>> [...] > >>> CiscoPE# > >>> > >>> ...so there's no confusion as to the state of the sham link. > >>> I don't have a Juniper L3 VPN PE or a Cisco CE handy. > >>> > >>> Peter E. Fry > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > >> > > > > -- > > Daniel Lete Murugarren > > HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network > > 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 > > Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +353-1-660 9040 fax: +353-1-660 > 3666 > > web: http://www.heanet.ie/ > > > > > > -- > Daniel Lete Murugarren > HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network > 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 > Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +353-1-660 9040 fax: +353-1-660 > 3666 > web: http://www.heanet.ie/ > -- Sergio Danelli JNCIE #170 _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
