On Thu 2016-Aug-18 17:13:09 +0200, raf <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello list,I know this topic has already discussed here but I got some trouble in getting these working properly.I got a simple topology consisting of 4 PE routers, and 2 P routers acting as in-path RRs.
Picking the Ps are RRs seems weird. Generally your Ps would just be in the IGP but be BGP free. There's nothing "wrong" with it per se, it's just an odd choice as generally you want your Ps to be lightweight and just label-switch without carrying heavy tables, whereas making them RRs means a bunch of RE utilization, which is the opposite of that objective.
The NHS choice on the RRs is also an odd one. Again, it's not necessarily "wrong" but it's not a standard choice and could lead to interesting behaviours. That your saying you couldn't easily take off NHS from the RRs makes me wonder what the constraints are there.
If this were my environment, I'd want to take a step back and consider why I'm doing in-path RRs on P routers when I also appear to have constraints on that choice (not being able to toggle NHS easily) that could make my life more difficult.
For whatever reason I want to use RSVP as LSP signaling protocol. I configured a full mesh of LSPs between PE only.So there is a problem in resolving route of my L3vpn as there is no route in inet.3 for my RRs.I've changed resolution of bgp.inet.0 to inet.0 on RRs and PEs.(I ve read this is not the only method, but I don't to deploy LDP or to make LSPs between P and PEs).It help and I can see all routing tables populated.However I ve got strange issues resulting in data path being broken, but not on all VRFs ?! and lot of logs like this "Couldn't find MPLS tunnel for NH id"What I've missed ? -- Raphael Mazelier
-- Hugo Slabbert | email, xmpp/jabber: [email protected] pgp key: B178313E | also on Signal
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
