Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 7200's not importing prefixes when RT of ASN:VRF_ID used

2018-08-20 Thread James Bensley 
Hi Stephen,

Do you see the routes being advertised from the iBGP neighoubrs?
show bgp vpnv4 uni vrf all neighbor 7200.ibgp.ip.addr adv | beg :999

Do you see the routes being received in the VPNv4 table on the 7200?
show bgp vpnv4 uni vrf all neigh ibgp.peer.ip.addr routes | beg :999
show bgp vpnv4 uni rd 1.0.0.1:999

What do you see if you use soft-reconfiguration inbound?

What about if you mix ASN:VPN_ID and IP:VPN_ID RTs on the VRF
definition on the 7200, do you still only see those with an IP:VPN_ID
RT?

Cheers,
James.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

[c-nsp] Cisco 7200's not importing prefixes when RT of ASN:VRF_ID used

2018-08-16 Thread Stephen Fulton 

Hi all,

I am having difficulty with some older Cisco 7200's within a production 
MPLS network.  The others hosts are IOS-XE or IOS-XR based and there are 
no issues with those.  The problem devices, plural, are 7206's with 
several different versions of IOS, so I do not believe it is a bug but 
likely a configuration issue.


The issue I am facing is that route-targets formatted as ASN:VRF_ID are 
not being accepted by the 7200's.  Route-targets formatted as IP:VRF_ID 
are.  Example VRF configs:


! Non-working configuration on a 7200
vrf definition VRF999
 rd 1.0.0.1:999
 address-family ipv4
  route-target export 23456:999
  route-target import 23456:999

! Working configuration on a 7200
vrf definition VRF999
 rd 1.0.0.1:999
 address-family ipv4
  route-target export 1.0.0.1:999
  route-target import 1.0.0.2:999
  route-target import 1.0.0.3:999
  (etc)

All other participating devices will see prefixes exported from the 
7200's when ASN:VRF_ID is used, but the 7200 will not see any prefixes 
which should be imported when using ASN:VRF_ID.


When IP:VRF_ID is used, all is well, however I cannot utilize that 
format without significant changes across the network, which is a very 
undesirable option.  I could potentially use route-target rewrite but I 
want to avoid that if possible as well.


What am I missing?  It has been almost a decade since I last ran into 
something like this, which is several networks ago and for the life of 
me I cannot recall and my Google-fu is failing.


Thanks,

Stephen

PS: I do have a BGP configuration for the VRF on the 7200's.. an example 
below.


router bgp 23456
 address-family vpnv4 uni
  neighbor 1.0.0.2 send-community both
  neighbor 1.0.0.3 send-community both
  (etc etc)
 address-family ipv4 vrf VRF999
  redistribute connected
  redistribute static
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/