I have a network that contains two distinct groups of servers.
Group1 with subnets A,B
Group2 with subnets C,D
Both groups use RVIs on a core VC (mix of EX4550s and 4200s) as their default
route. There are two different paths out of the network. I'd like Group1 to
take path1 and Group2 to take path2. Subnets A,B,C and D should be able to
communicate directly, preferably within the VC (not out to another device and
back).
I can create a routing-instance for each group (or 1 and use the global table
for the other). Adding the RVIs and maintaining a separate default route out
for each routing-instance is no problem. The trouble is trying to allow the
subnets to communicate to each other.
I've tried adding a static route under the routing-instance for Group 1 to a
subnet outside the routing-instance, e.g. a route to subnet C inside
routing-instance for Group1, but the route never shows up in the routing table,
presumably because there isn't a live interface in routing-instance C with a
connection to subnet C. and it doesn't look like there's an option to make the
next-hop an interface instead of an IP.
group1-vr {
instance-type virtual-router;
interface vlan.A;
routing-options {
static {
route C.0/23 next-hop C.1;
}
}
}
root@ex# run show route
<snip>
group1-vr.inet.0: 2 destinations, 2 routes (2 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both
A.0/23 *[Direct/0] 1d 00:52:00
> via vlan.A
A.1/32 *[Local/0] 1d 00:52:00
Local via vlan.A
I will try rib groups next, but I think I read somewhere that EX switches don't
support importing static routes via rib groups.
I suppose this could also be solved by Filter Based Forwarding, but I'd like to
avoid that if possible; it just doesn't seem as clean.
thanks in advance!
-andy
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
