> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:juniper-nsp- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Clarke Morledge > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 5:31 PM > To: Alan Gravett > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] IS-IS database leaking across virtual routers? > > Alan, > > Actually, I did implement your workaround before with the static host > mapping. But that is rather cosmetic when compared to something like the > overload bit. In theory (or at least, in *my* theory), setting the IS-IS > overload bit in one virtual routing instance should not interfere with > IS-IS in another virtual routing instance. > > Unfortunately, the observed behavior on the MX platform suggests some form > of leaking. I'm just not entirely convinced now that a "virtual router" > really means a separate link-state database per virtual router. Within > this context, a virtual router should behave just like a physical router > --- or like a logical router, for that matter. > > Am I mistaken here?
Hey Clarke, Sorry, I'm just getting around to reading this now. I would say you are correct in your understanding of the way that VRs are supposed to work - routes/TLVs/etc. in one VR should not be leaking into the other. I'm curious, how are you mapping the traffic into their respective VRs? Are these separate and distinct physical interfaces which are bound to their respect VRs or are you using some form of VLAN tagging and mapping unique VLANs into a given VR? Is there any chance you have any type of rib-groups or some other type of vrf-import/export policy in place that might be causing some unintended behavior? Care to share some of your configuration? All the best, Stefan Fouant, CISSP, JNCIEx2 www.shortestpathfirst.net GPG Key ID: 0xB5E3803D _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
