Sergio, In your tests, what indication did you see that the sham link was up and working as expected? Did it appear as an OSPF neighbor in 'sh ospf neigh instance <name>' ? did something specific occur in your log file (if you enabled one) that indicated 'sham link up!'. I suppose one of the difficulties I'm having is that I don't know what I should expect to see from the sham link, nor can I tell if it's up or down.
David On 07/12/2007, Sergio D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
