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/ _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
