Stefan, Thanks for your explanation,
let me say if I configure MPLS between R3 and R2, and I install lo0 at R1, could R4 reach that lo0 ? as far as I know, I doubt it if using indirect static. Regards, Samin On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Stefan Fouant < [email protected]> wrote: > Yep, as I mentioned before, the packet is getting to R3, but R3 has no > route to the 10.10.10/30 subnet. This is the fundamental premise behing > "hop-by-hop" routing. Each router along the path needs to consult it's > routing table to find a match. If you don't like this behavior, use MPLS ;) > The resolve keyword on R4 only allows R4 to recursively look in it's routing > table for a path to reach an indirectly connected next-hop, it doesn't > instill any intelligence on R3. When the packet gets to R3 it needs to know > where to forward the packet. That is why your traceroute is returning ICMP > unreachables after the first hop. > > Sorry for the top posting. I'm on BB. > > > Stefan Fouant > www.shortestpathfirst.net > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > ------------------------------ > *From: * amin amin <[email protected]> > *Date: *Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:48:35 +0700 > *To: *Stefan Fouant<[email protected]> > *Cc: *<[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [j-nsp] unreachable indirect next-hop-static > > In indirect next-hop should it need route define at r3 for prefix > 10.10.10/30? > here is the configuration: > logical-systems { > r1 { > interfaces { > ge-2/1/6 { > unit 1 { > vlan-id 1; > ## > ## invalid path element 'aggregated-ether-options' > ## > family inet { > address 10.10.10.1/30; > } > } > } > } > routing-options { > static { > route 0.0.0.0/0 next-hop 10.10.10.2; > } > } > } > r2 { > interfaces { > ge-2/1/7 { > unit 1 { > vlan-id 1; > ## > ## invalid path element 'aggregated-ether-options' > ## > family inet { > address 10.10.10.2/30; > } > } > unit 2 { > vlan-id 2; > ## > ## invalid path element 'aggregated-ether-options' > ## > family inet { > address 100.100.100.1/30; > } > } > } > } > protocols { > ospf { > area 0.0.0.0 { > interface ge-2/1/7.2; > } > } > } > } > r3 { > interfaces { > ge-2/1/6 { > unit 2 { > vlan-id 2; > ## > ## invalid path element 'aggregated-ether-options' > ## > family inet { > address 100.100.100.2/30; > } > } > unit 3 { > vlan-id 3; > ## > ## invalid path element 'aggregated-ether-options' > ## > family inet { > address 20.20.20.1/30; > } > } > } > } > protocols { > ospf { > area 0.0.0.0 { > interface all; > } > } > } > } > r4 { > interfaces { > ge-2/1/7 { > unit 3 { > vlan-id 3; > ## > ## invalid path element 'aggregated-ether-options' > ## > family inet { > address 20.20.20.2/30; > } > } > } > } > protocols { > ospf { > area 0.0.0.0 { > interface all; > } > } > } > routing-options { > static { > route 10.10.10.0/30 { > next-hop 100.100.100.1; > resolve; > } > } > } > } > } > interfaces { > ge-2/1/6 { > vlan-tagging; > } > ge-2/1/7 { > vlan-tagging; > } > } > > [edit] > lab# run show route 10.10.10.1 logical-system r3 > > [edit] > lab# run show route 10.10.10.1 logical-system r4 > > inet.0: 5 destinations, 5 routes (5 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) > + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both > > 10.10.10.0/30 *[Static/5] 00:21:17, metric2 2 > > to 20.20.20.1 via ge-2/1/7.3 > > [edit] > lab# run show route 20.20.20.2 logical-system r1 > > inet.0: 3 destinations, 3 routes (3 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) > + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both > > 0.0.0.0/0 *[Static/5] 00:20:40 > > to 10.10.10.2 via ge-2/1/6.1 > > [edit] > lab# run traceroute 10.10.10.1 logical-system r4 > traceroute to 10.10.10.1 (10.10.10.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets > 1 20.20.20.1 (20.20.20.1) 0.388 ms !N 0.298 ms !N 0.273 ms !N > > [edit] > lab# run traceroute 20.20.20.1 logical-system r1 > traceroute to 20.20.20.1 (20.20.20.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets > 1 10.10.10.2 (10.10.10.2) 0.388 ms 0.289 ms 0.276 ms > ^C > [edit] > > rgds, > samin > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Stefan Fouant < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: [email protected] [mailto:juniper-nsp- >> > [email protected]] On Behalf Of amin amin >> > Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 7:38 PM >> > >> > Can Junos do indirect next-hop static, let me say >> > r1-r2-r3-r4 >> > r4 should reach r1 using static route with gateway 100.100.100.1 >> > r1 using default route static >> > r2-r3-r4 are using ospf protocol area 0 >> > r1's IP to r2 = 10.10.10.1/30 >> > r2's IP to r1 = 10.10.10.2/30 >> > r2's IP to r3 = 100.100.100.1/30 >> > r3's IP to r2 = 100.100.100.2/30 >> > r3's IP to r4 = 20.20.20.1/30 >> > r4's IP to r3 = 20.20.20.2/30 >> > >> > when I check availble route 10.10.10/30 at r4, it's always shown up. >> > but it >> > never be reached >> > the configuration at r4 for static route >> > set routing-option static route 10.10.10/30 next-hop 100.100.100.1 >> > resolve >> > set routing-option forwarding-table indirect-next-hop >> > >> > >> > the configuration static route at r1 >> > set routing-option static route 0/0 next-hop 10.10.10.2 >> >> What happens when you do a traceroute? Based on your configs, I imagine >> the >> packets would get dropped on r3 as there is no route defined on r3 to >> reach >> the 10.10.10/30 subnet. >> >> Also, you do not need to do 'set routing-options forwarding-table >> indirect-next-hop'. That has nothing to do with the 'resolve' keyword >> under >> [edit routing-options static route]. Rather, it is used to improve route >> convergence time by abstracting a level of recursion so that fewer route >> to >> forwarding next-hop bindings need to be updated when underlying next-hop >> paths are changed. More details on that can be found via the link below: >> >> >> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos92/swconfig-routing/enab >> ling-an-indirect-next-hop.html<http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos92/swconfig-routing/enab%0Aling-an-indirect-next-hop.html> >> >> Stefan Fouant >> www.shortestpathfirst.net >> GPG Key ID: 0xB5E3803D >> >> > > > -- > ------------------------------------------- > http://aministi.web.id/ > ------------------------------------------- > -- ------------------------------------------- http://aministi.web.id/ ------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
