On 15. feb. 2014, at 09:24, ryanL <[email protected]> wrote: > isn't that accomished essentially with the interface-routes stanza, or is my > interpretation off?
Your interpretation is fine. I've missed that. Sorry for misleading you.
So, you do have a route for the next-hop in the nat-vrf.inet.0:
# show route forwarding-table table nat-vrf destination 10.1.5.11
...and 10.1.5.11 does not resolve? Have you verified Olivier's suggestion yet?
Cheers,
Matjaž
>
> On Friday, February 14, 2014, Matjaz Straus Istenic <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> On 15. feb. 2014, at 08:19, Matjaz Straus Istenic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Maybe you should install local (interface) router in your nat-vrt routing
> > instance as well.
> Fat fingers and fast typing, I had "direct _routes_" in mind. For example:
>
> policy-statement ... {
> ....
> term InstallLocal {
> from {
> protocol direct;
> route-filter ...;
> }
> to rib nat-vrf.inet.0;
> then accept;
> }
>
>
> > Or, at least the ones your need -- the vlan.105.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Matjaž
>
>
>
> --
> ..mobile ryry..
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
