Routing

last person joined: 3 days ago 

Ask questions and share experiences about ACX Series, CTP Series, MX Series, PTX Series, SSR Series, JRR Series, and all things routing, including portfolios and protocols.
Expand all | Collapse all

EX routing issue

Erdem

Erdem10-28-2012 23:20

Erdem

Erdem10-29-2012 06:40

Erdem

Erdem10-31-2012 17:59

  • 1.  EX routing issue

    Posted 10-28-2012 19:50

     labeled-unicast

     

    would u like to show me an example of this command ,

    in which case we need to use this labeled-unicast



  • 2.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-28-2012 22:04

    Hi

    From RFC 3107 ( http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3107.txt)

     

    "When BGP is used to distribute a particular route, it can also be used to distribute an MPLS label that is mapped to that route. Thelabel mapping information for a particular route is piggybacked in the same BGP Update message that is used to distribute the route itself."

     

    Application that we use labeled-unicast.

    1) Inter-AS option C

    2) RSVP-LDP stitching ( This is very simillar to Inter-AS Option C)

    I posted a working example in the following link about this.

    http://forums.juniper.net/t5/Routing/RSVP-LDP-Stitch/m-p/164426#M7580

     

    3) 6 PE solution ( family inet6 labeled-unicast explicit-null)

     

    This capability can be used for many other applications.

     

    Basically, the BGP peer will send the routes with  labels allocated for each routes and keep record of the labels ( it will have the label operation which needs to be done when it recieves a packet with that particular label).

     

    The recieving peer will attach the label accrdingly, when it sends the packet to the sender.

     

    Regards,

    Moses N



  • 3.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-28-2012 23:20

    thx



  • 4.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-29-2012 01:56

    Hi Robert,

    Not a problem. I will try to create an example to explain why we need "traffic-engineering bgp-igp" and "labeled-unicast" on ASBRs for Inter-AS option C.

     

    There is another way of doing Inter-AS option C. But I will try to replicate your example.

     I thought you got the answer from your earlier question that you post.

     

    I will post the explanation soon here.

     

    Regards,

    Moses N



  • 5.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-29-2012 03:57

    hi,Mose

    I checked your post on

    http://forums.juniper.net/t5/Routing/RSVP-LDP-Stitch/m-p/164426#M7580

     

    it seems same as internet option C ,but no "traffic-engineering bgp-igp" configured.....

     

     

    you are expert



  • 6.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-29-2012 05:44
      |   view attached

     

    Hi,

    As I mentioned before, there is another way of configuring Inter-AS option C which is slightly different in configurations. But it works as exactly same in forwarding plane.

     

    In here, I am going to discuss about the method which you used.

     

    inter-as-option_c.jpg

     

     

     

     

    The diagram shows the bgp sessions and the packet flow in MPLS network when R8 sends a pcaket to R7.

    V - VPN label  ( Exchanged via EBGP inet-vpn unicast session)
    X - R2's label ( Exchanged via EBGP & IBGP  inet labeled-unicast session for 2.2.2.2/32)
    A - R5's label ( Exchanged by RSVP/LDP for 5.5.5.5/32)


    As shown in the diagram, ASBRs exchange labeled unicast routes between them.
    R3 will send route 2.2.2.2/32 with a label to R5, simillarly R5 will send route 4.4.4.4/32 with a label to R3.

    Let's say , we don't have "traffic-engineering bgp-igp" configured on R3.
    R3 will have 2.2.2.2/32 route in inet.0 learnt from OSPF and RSVP route in inet.3 table.
    so, R3 will use MPLS LSP for only BGP routes learnt from R2.
    But to reach R2's loopback 2.2.2.2 , R3 will use IGP route.

    Even though, R3 sends a label for 2.2.2.2/32 to remote ASBR (R5), it doesn't have a label-path to reach 2.2.2.2, hence it will show a "pop" operation in the mpls.0 table.


    We can verify this by checking the R3's mpls.0 table.
    ( The following output was taken, when "mpls traffic-engineering bgp-igp" was not configured on R3)
     
    mpls.0: 6 destinations, 6 routes (6 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
    + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both

    0                  *[MPLS/0] 00:58:54, metric 1
                          Receive
    1                  *[MPLS/0] 00:58:54, metric 1
                          Receive
    2                  *[MPLS/0] 00:58:54, metric 1
                          Receive
    300048             *[VPN/170] 00:36:11
                        > to 192.168.13.1 via em2.13, Pop      
    300048(S=0)        *[VPN/170] 00:36:11
                        > to 192.168.13.1 via em2.13, Pop      
    300080             *[VPN/170] 00:35:59  
                        > to 192.168.35.5 via em2.35, Swap 300032

    If R3 pops the second label (Y) and sends the packet with VPN-label (V), R1 doesn't know what to do with label V and it will be dropped.  


    If we configure "traffic-engineering bgp-igp" on R3, it will install a label-path in inet.0 to reach 2.2.2.2/32 (R2).
    Therfore, R2 sends a corresponding label to R5 so that it can swap the labeled-packets coming from R5 to reach R2.


    ( The following output was taken, with "mpls traffic-engineering bgp-igp" on R3)

    mpls.0: 5 destinations, 5 routes (5 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
    + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both

    0                  *[MPLS/0] 01:02:55, metric 1
                          Receive
    1                  *[MPLS/0] 01:02:55, metric 1
                          Receive
    2                  *[MPLS/0] 01:02:55, metric 1
                          Receive
    300176             *[VPN/170] 00:00:56
                        > to 192.168.35.5 via em2.35, Swap 300112
    300208             *[VPN/170] 00:00:53
                        > to 192.168.13.1 via em2.13, Swap 299920


    Therefore packet can be correctly switched to R2.

    As a summary, we need an label-path from ASBR to PEs ( loopbacks) , so that the label-switching operation can be correctly performed on ASBR.
    "mpls traffic-engineering bgp-igp" / "bgp-igp-both-ribs" help us to install a label-path on ASBRs to reach PEs.


    Also, we need "resolve-vpn" knob  configured on PEs, in order to install the routes in inet.3 table from the routes recieved over labeled-unicast session.
    (in other word,  "resolve-vpn" extracts the label information from BGP route and install that in inet.3)
    Without the proper route in inet.3 , the VPN will not work.

    Regards,

    Moses N

     



  • 7.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-29-2012 06:40

    thx,u are the man



  • 8.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-29-2012 07:02

    it seems I missed some stuff in control plane or data plane,

    help me,Mose



  • 9.  RE: EX routing issue

     
    Posted 10-29-2012 16:40

    Hi Moses,


    mosesnehru wrote:

     


    Let's say , we don't have "traffic-engineering bgp-igp" configured on R3.
    R3 will have 2.2.2.2/32 route in inet.0 learnt from OSPF and RSVP route in inet.3 table.
    so, R3 will use MPLS LSP for only BGP routes learnt from R2.
    But to reach R2's loopback 2.2.2.2 , R3 will use IGP route.

     


    I hope this is case wherein you advertise R2 OSPF route from R3 to R5. Since you diagram indicated labeled-bgp between R2 and R3.

     

    Regards

    Surya

     



  • 10.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-30-2012 03:55

    Hi Robert,

     

    You should imagine R3 as a P router which knows only label switching between PEs.

    P routers need label information to correctly switch the packets between PE routers. This is stored in mpls.0 table.

     

    inet.3 routing table is used on ingress routers to route packets to the destination egress router.
    BGP uses the inet.3 routing table on the ingress router to help in resolving next-hop addresses.
    mpls.0 contains a list of the next label-switched router in each LSP. This routing table is used on transit routers to route packets to the next router along an LSP.

     

    In MPLS VPN network,

    inet.3 table is consulted when a router acts as a PE in MPLS network.

    mpls.0 table is consulted when a router acts as a P router.

     

    When we send a packet from R7 to R8,  R3 acts like a transit router. Therefore it needs label information in mpls.0 table. ( should know, how to swap the label of the incoming packet from R5 and forward it to R1..)

     

     

     

    ok, Now....

    If you check the vpn-a routing table on R4

    7.7.7.7/32  has protocol next-hop 2.2.2.2, so R4 will check how to reach 2.2.2.2.

    The answer will be 5.5.5.5.

     

    So, R4 needs to send the packet to R5 and then from there it should reach R2.

    Which means, from R5, we need an unbroken  label-switch path up to R2.

     

    How this label-switch-path established??

    R3 sends 2.2.2.2/32  route with a label (X)  to R5. ( in simple word, R3 tells R5, if you want to send a packet to R2, send it with outer label X)

     

    The following is the export policy on R3 to export 2.2.2.2/32 to R5..

     

    policy-options {
        policy-statement pe {
            term 1 {
                from {
                    route-filter 2.2.2.2/32 exact;
                }
                then accept;
            }
            term 2 {
                then reject;
            }
        }
    }

     

    Basically, this policy tells,  export 2.2.2.2/32 from main routing table (inet.0).

     

    When R3 sends 2.2.2.2/32 to R5 over labeled-unicat session, it should send a label (Y)  and allocate a local label.

    That means, R3 should decide what to do when R5 sends a packet with label Y.

     

    If R3 has OSPF route 2.2.2.2/32 in inet.0, R3 will think, It needs to do pure IP routing towards R1 when it receives a packet with label Y. That is the reason, we see "POP" operation in mpls.0 of R3 when we have OSPF route ( when we don't configure "traffic-engineering bgp-igp").

    This is not desirable, because If R3 "pops" the outer label,  P router (R1)  doesn't  know what to do with VPN label.

     

     

    On the other hand, if R3 has a working label-switch route, R3 will decide , it needs to send the packet to R1 with a label (Z) and hence we see a "swap" operation in mpls.0.

    This is desirable, because P routers can label-switch the packet now until it reaches R2.

     

    Therefore, we need a label-switch path in inet.0 to reach PE loopback  2.2.2.2.2. This can be achieved by copying/moving RSVP LSP to inet.0 by "mpls traffic-engineering bgp-igp".

     


    I hope, this explains your question.

     

    Regards,

    Moses N

     

     

     

     

     



  • 11.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-30-2012 04:56

    Hi,Mose

    glad to see your reply

    1:

    1)so it means in control plane,when R3 send label Y +2.2.2.2 to R5 ,it also think about how to handle packets with this label y incoming from R5,am I correct?i

    2) if there is only one entry  ospf 2.2.2.2 in inet.0 ,it will think I only can use this ospf route to reach 2.2.2.2.Am I correct?

     

    2:if we set "traffic-engineering bgp-igp",it will move entry ldp 2.2.2.2 lsp to inet.0 ,then it will think if I send Y+2.2.2.2 to R5 ,I should add another label X in my local,if packet with Y incoming from R5,I will swap the label with X

    Am I correct?

     

    it use this ldp entry because ldp is 2.2.2.2/32         *[LDP/9] which is more preferrable than OSPF/10,right?

     

    3:this command changes the behavior of R3 (labeld-unicast/ldp) in control plane,right?


    this is the approach we said let IGP use inet.3, it is because ldp or rsvp is has high priority than IGP,Am I correct

    ?

    if ldp is 200,even we move it to inet.0,R3 will not use it.

     



  • 12.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-31-2012 03:06

     

    Hi Robert,

     

    1:

    a)Correct. When a router sends a label to another router, it will decide what action needs to be done when when it recieves a packet with that label.

     

    b) Yes. If OSPF route is the one only available in inet.0, then definitley it will use that route.

     

    2: When R3 sends 2.2.2.2/32 + label Y to R5, it will use the local label Z which was allocated by LDP / RSVP for 2.2.2.2/32

    So when R3 gets a packet with label Y from R5, it will swap with that label Z and forward it to R1.

     

    LDP route will be selected over OSPF.

     

    3) This is more related to a change in data-plane. ( the way packet is forwarded)

     

    4) Yes, the  route with lowest route-preference value will be selected. In case if ldp route has route-preference 200, OSPF will be selected.

     

     

    Rgds,

    Moses

     

     



  • 13.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-30-2012 04:26

    Hi Surya,

    "labeled-unicat" session between R2 and R3 is used for advertising routes received from other AS ( from R5).

    Basically, R2 will learn the label-routes of other AS ( in this example 4.4.4.4/32 )  from R3 over this IBGP labeled-unicat session.

     

    Rgds,

    Moses N

     

     



  • 14.  RE: EX routing issue

     
    Posted 10-31-2012 10:01

    Hi Moses


    mosesnehru wrote:

    Hi Surya,

    "labeled-unicat" session between R2 and R3 is used for advertising routes received from other AS ( from R5).

    Basically, R2 will learn the label-routes of other AS ( in this example 4.4.4.4/32 )  from R3 over this IBGP labeled-unicat session.

     

    Rgds,

    Moses N

     

     


    Right, my query was if R3 was advertising R2 address learnt via OSPF.

     

    Basically in this case, with R2 loopback address learnt from both OSPF and labeled-bgp( assuming R2 advertises via l-bgp and l-bgp rib is left to default as inet.0), then OSPF route would be active based on perference on R3 and if the export policy from R3 is to just pick R2's loopback address, then it would be OSPF route that would be picked up. Hence when we receive the traffic from R5, it would be mapped to OSPF path rather than BGP path.

     

    The other option would be to remove the export-policy on ASBR and make BGP to advertise-inactive L-BGP routes.

     

     

    Regards

    Surya



  • 15.  RE: EX routing issue

     
    Posted 10-31-2012 10:28

    This is what I meant in previous my post:
    ================================

    user@R3> show policy-options policy-statement R2_lo_addr
    term 1 {
        from route-filter 2.2.2.2 exact;
        then accept;
    }
    term 2 {
        then reject;
    }

    user@R3> show route 2.2.2.2

    inet.0: 53 destinations, 56 routes (52 active, 0 holddown, 1 hidden)
    + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both

    2.2.2.2/32         *[OSPF/10] 00:09:24, metric 2
                        > to 10.0.1.2 via ge-2/1/6.0
                        [BGP/170] 00:02:47, localpref 100, from 2.2.2.2
                          AS path: I, validation-state: unverified
                        > to 10.0.1.2 via ge-2/1/6.0, label-switched-path lsp

    user@R3> run show route advertising-protocol bgp 200.8.1.2 detail

    inet.0: 53 destinations, 56 routes (52 active, 0 holddown, 1 hidden)
    * 2.2.2.2/32 (2 entries, 1 announced)
     BGP group ext type External
         Route Label: 299776
         Nexthop: Self
         Flags: Nexthop Change
         MED: 2
         AS path: [100] I


    user@R3> show route label 299776 detail

    mpls.0: 7 destinations, 7 routes (7 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
    299776 (1 entry, 1 announced)
            *VPN    Preference: 170
                    Next hop type: Router, Next hop index: 566
                    Address: 0x944d654
                    Next-hop reference count: 2
                    Next hop: 10.0.1.2 via ge-2/1/6.0, selected
                    Label operation: Pop      
                    Session Id: 0x201
                    State: <Active Int Ext>
                    Local AS:   100
                    Age: 15
                    Validation State: unverified
                    Task: BGP_RT_Background
                    Announcement bits (1): 0-KRT
                    AS path: I
                    Ref Cnt: 1

    299776(S=0) (1 entry, 1 announced)
            *VPN    Preference: 170
                    Next hop type: Router, Next hop index: 568
                    Address: 0x944d6a0
                    Next-hop reference count: 2
                    Next hop: 10.0.1.2 via ge-2/1/6.0, selected
                    Label operation: Pop      
                    Session Id: 0x201
                    State: <Active Int Ext>
                    Local AS:   100
                    Age: 15
                    Validation State: unverified
                    Task: BGP_RT_Background
                    Announcement bits (1): 0-KRT
                    AS path: I

     

     

    Removing export policy and adding "advertise-inactive" knob for R5 L-BGP session:

    user@R3> show route advertising-protocol bgp 200.8.1.2 detail    

    inet.0: 53 destinations, 56 routes (52 active, 0 holddown, 1 hidden)
      2.2.2.2/32 (2 entries, 2 announced)
     BGP group ext type External
         Route Label: 299792
         Nexthop: Self
         Flags: Nexthop Change
         AS path: [100] I


    user@R3> show route label 299792 detail                          

    mpls.0: 6 destinations, 6 routes (6 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
    299792 (1 entry, 1 announced)
            *VPN    Preference: 170
                    Next hop type: Indirect
                    Address: 0x944d784
                    Next-hop reference count: 2
                    Source: 2.2.2.2
                    Next hop type: Router, Next hop index: 569
                    Next hop: 10.0.1.2 via ge-2/1/6.0 weight 0x1, selected
                    Label-switched-path lsp
                    Label operation: Swap 300080
                    Session Id: 0x201
                    Protocol next hop: 2.2.2.2
                    Pop      
                    Indirect next hop: 974c0ec 2097150 INH Session ID: 0x203
                    State: <Active Int Ext>
                    Local AS:   100
                    Age: 24         Metric2: 2
                    Validation State: unverified
                    Task: BGP_RT_Background
                    Announcement bits (1): 0-KRT
                    AS path: I
                    Ref Cnt: 1



  • 16.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-31-2012 17:59

    thx



  • 17.  RE: EX routing issue

     
    Posted 10-31-2012 18:45

    Hi Rob,

     


    Robbie wrote:

    with family labeled-unicast rib inet.3 configured,R3(ASBR) will send entry in inet.3 to peer,in this way,it will also use inet.3 to handle the traffic incoming from that router,right?

     

     


    That's right, this is another option as BGP protocol NH would be resolved using inet.3 route.

    Regards

    Surya Prakash



  • 18.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-31-2012 19:38

    hi,Surya

     

    would u mind to explain a little more on this?

    That's right, this is another option as BGP protocol NH would be resolved using inet.3 route.???

     

    family labeled-unicast rib inet.3 configured,it means R3(ASBR-1) will send entry in inet.3 to ASBR-2,at the same time,R3 will think since it is from inet.3,so when traffic with this label coming,it will use inet.3 to lookup,so it assgin a local label in its local,

    Am I coorect?



  • 19.  RE: EX routing issue

     
    Posted 10-31-2012 20:01

    Hi Rob,

     


    Robbie wrote:

    hi,Surya

     

    would u mind to explain a little more on this?

    That's right, this is another option as BGP protocol NH would be resolved using inet.3 route.???

     

    family labeled-unicast rib inet.3 configured,it means R3(ASBR-1) will send entry in inet.3 to ASBR-2,at the same time,R3 will think since it is from inet.3,so when traffic with this label coming,it will use inet.3 to lookup,so it assgin a local label in its local,

    Am I coorect?



    Ok, let me try to explain this. Basically here we are talking about R2 address advertisement.

    Let's take the snippet of the topology that is in consideration:

     

    R5-------R3------R1------R2

     

     

    [1] With "family inet labeled-unicast rib inet.3", when R3[ASBR} gets R2 loopback address from R2 via l-bgp session, it would be installed in inet.3. However since this is ibgp route, its protocol NH still needs to be resolved by R3 as it would not be directly connected one. Actually when R2 advertises this route, it puts its own loopback address as protocol NH, meaning in this route prefix and protocol nh would be same.

     

    user@R3> show route receive-protocol bgp 2.2.2.2 table inet.3 detail

    inet.3: 3 destinations, 4 routes (3 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
      2.2.2.2/32 (2 entries, 2 announced)
         Accepted
         Route Label: 3
         Nexthop: 2.2.2.2
         Localpref: 100
         AS path: I

     

    [2] Since we have LSP to R2 loopback address in inet.3, the BGP NH would be resolved using this route.

     

    user@R3> show route 2.2.2.2 table inet.3 detail

    inet.3: 3 destinations, 4 routes (3 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
    2.2.2.2/32 (2 entries, 2 announced)
            State: <FlashAll>
            *RSVP   Preference: 7/1
                    Next hop type: Router
                    Address: 0x944cf34
                    Next-hop reference count: 8
                    Next hop: 10.0.1.2 via ge-2/1/6.0 weight 0x1, selected
                    Label-switched-path lsp
                    Label operation: Push 300144
                    Label TTL action: prop-ttl
                    Session Id: 0x201
                    State: <Active Int>
                    Local AS:   100
                    Age: 5:02:02    Metric: 2
                    Validation State: unverified
                    Task: RSVP
                    Announcement bits (1): 4-Resolve tree 2
                    AS path: I
             BGP    Preference: 170/-101
                    Next hop type: Indirect
                    Address: 0x944d0fc
                    Next-hop reference count: 2
                    Source: 2.2.2.2
                    Next hop type: Router
                    Next hop: 10.0.1.2 via ge-2/1/6.0 weight 0x1, selected
                    Label-switched-path lsp
                    Label operation: Push 300144
                    Label TTL action: prop-ttl
                    Session Id: 0x201
                    Protocol next hop: 2.2.2.2
                    Indirect next hop: 973c000 - INH Session ID: 0x21c
                    State: <Int Ext>
                    Inactive reason: Route Preference
                    Local AS:   100 Peer AS:   100
                    Age: 1:18:09    Metric2: 2
                    Validation State: unverified
                    Task: BGP_100.2.2.2.2+60177
                    Announcement bits (1): 6-BGP_RT_Background
                    AS path: I
                    Accepted
                    Route Label: 3
                    Localpref: 100
                    Router ID: 2.2.2.2

     

    [3] So eventually when the packet comes from R5 with a label as advertised by R3, you will see it takes LSP path.

     

    user@PE> show route advertising-protocol bgp 200.8.1.2 detail    >> to R5

    inet.3: 3 destinations, 4 routes (3 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
      2.2.2.2/32 (2 entries, 2 announced)
     BGP group ext type External
         Route Label: 299920
         Nexthop: Self
         Flags: Nexthop Change
         AS path: [100] I

    user@PE> show route label 299920 detail

    mpls.0: 6 destinations, 6 routes (6 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
    299920 (1 entry, 1 announced)
            *VPN    Preference: 170
                    Next hop type: Indirect
                    Address: 0x944d1e0
                    Next-hop reference count: 2
                    Source: 2.2.2.2
                    Next hop type: Router, Next hop index: 568
                    Next hop: 10.0.1.2 via ge-2/1/6.0 weight 0x1, selected
                    Label-switched-path lsp
                    Label operation: Swap 300144
                    Session Id: 0x201
                    Protocol next hop: 2.2.2.2
                    Pop      
                    Indirect next hop: 973c0ec 2097150 INH Session ID: 0x21c
                    State: <Active Int Ext>
                    Local AS:   100
                    Age: 1:15:41    Metric2: 2
                    Validation State: unverified
                    Task: BGP_RT_Background
                    Announcement bits (1): 0-KRT
                    AS path: I
                    Ref Cnt: 1

     

    Regards

    Surya

     



  • 20.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-31-2012 20:06

    hmmm

    sorry for the wrong communication

     

    R3 get R2's loopback ip via ospf ,not via iBGP

     

    R3 still export this 2.2.2.2 to peer ASBR-2 with "family inet labeled-unicast rib inet.3"

     

    when traffic coming in R3 from R2,it will not pop the label,instead,it will swap,I want to know when set "family inet labeled-unicast rib inet.3",what is changed in R3's logical..



  • 21.  RE: EX routing issue

     
    Posted 10-31-2012 20:14
    Hi Rob,

    Are you talking about L-BGP and RSVP/LDP stitching? Because the export policy in this case with "family inet labeled-unicast rib inet.3" would be from inet.3 point of view.

    Frankly I haven't tried this and need to try out in lab.

    Regards
    Surya


  • 22.  RE: EX routing issue

     
    Posted 10-31-2012 20:25

    Hi Rob,

     

    This seems to work. Basically I have tried to stitch LBGP with RSVP.

     

    user@R3> show policy-options policy-statement r2_lo
    from {
        protocol rsvp;
        route-filter 2.2.2.2/32 exact;
    }
    then accept;


    user@R3> show route 2.2.2.2

    inet.0: 53 destinations, 55 routes (52 active, 0 holddown, 1 hidden)
    + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both

    2.2.2.2/32         *[OSPF/10] 10:11:00, metric 2
                        > to 10.0.1.2 via ge-2/1/6.0

    inet.3: 3 destinations, 3 routes (3 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
    + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both

    2.2.2.2/32         *[RSVP/7/1] 05:27:33, metric 2
                        > to 10.0.1.2 via ge-2/1/6.0, label-switched-path lsp

     

    user@R3> show rsvp session ingress name lsp                      
    Ingress RSVP: 2 sessions
    To              From            State   Rt Style Labelin Labelout LSPname
    2.2.2.2         1.1.1.1         Up       0  1 FF       -   300144 lsp
    Total 1 displayed, Up 1, Down 0


    user@R3> show route advertising-protocol bgp 200.8.1.2 detail

    inet.3: 3 destinations, 3 routes (3 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
    * 2.2.2.2/32 (1 entry, 1 announced)
     BGP group ext type External
         Route Label: 299968
         Nexthop: Self
         Flags: Nexthop Change
         MED: 2
         AS path: [100] I


    user@R3> show route label 299968 detail

    mpls.0: 7 destinations, 7 routes (7 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
    299968 (1 entry, 1 announced)
            *VPN    Preference: 170
                    Next hop type: Router, Next hop index: 568
                    Address: 0x944d1e0
                    Next-hop reference count: 2
                    Next hop: 10.0.1.2 via ge-2/1/6.0 weight 0x1, selected
                    Label operation: Swap 300144
                    Session Id: 0x201
                    State: <Active Int Ext>
                    Local AS:   100
                    Age: 4:11
                    Validation State: unverified
                    Task: BGP_RT_Background
                    Announcement bits (1): 0-KRT
                    AS path: I
                    Ref Cnt: 1

     

    Regards

    Surya



  • 23.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-31-2012 20:43

      ASBR-1 {
            interfaces {
                em1 {
                    unit 34 {
                        vlan-id 34;
                        family inet {
                            address 34.1.1.1/24;
                        }
                        family mpls;
                    }
                }
                em2 {
                    unit 23 {
                        vlan-id 23;
                        family inet {
                            address 23.1.1.2/24;
                        }
                        family mpls;
                    }
                }
                lo0 {
                    unit 3 {
                        family inet {
                            address 3.3.3.3/32;
                        }
                    }
                }
            }
            protocols {
                mpls {
                    interface em2.23;
                    interface lo0.3;
                    interface em1.34;
                }
                bgp {
                    group int {
                        type internal;
                        local-address 3.3.3.3;
                        family inet {
                            unicast;
                            labeled-unicast {
                                rib {
                                    inet.3;
                                }
                            }
                        }
                        export nhs;
                        neighbor 1.1.1.1;
                    }
                    group ext {
                        type external;
                        family inet {
                            unicast;
                            labeled-unicast {
                                rib {
                                    inet.3;
                                }
                            }
                        }
                        export PE-1;
                        peer-as 20;
                        neighbor 34.1.1.2;
                    }
                }
                ospf {
                    area 0.0.0.0 {
                        interface em2.23;
                        interface lo0.3;
                    }
                }
                ldp {
                    interface em2.23;
                    interface lo0.3;
                }
            }
            policy-options {
                policy-statement PE-1 {
                    term 1 {
                        from {
                            route-filter 1.1.1.1/32 exact;
                        }
                        then accept;
                    }
                }
                policy-statement nhs {
                    term 1 {
                        from {
                            protocol bgp;
                            route-type external;
                        }
                        then {
                            next-hop self;
                        }
                    }
                }
            }
            routing-options {
                autonomous-system 10;
            }
        }



  • 24.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-31-2012 20:51

    this is the config for inter AS option C  method 2

     

    see the red part

     

    pls explain a little more



  • 25.  RE: EX routing issue

     
    Posted 10-31-2012 20:53

    Hi Rob,

     

    Before moving to this, did I answer you previous query Smiley Wink

     

    Regards

    Surya



  • 26.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-31-2012 20:59
    ---------------------------------- Hi Rob, Before moving to this, did I answer you previous query Regards Surya .------------------------------------------------- thx ,yes,u did


  • 27.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-31-2012 20:54

    actually I want to say this part

     

     

                    group ext {
                        type external;
                        family inet {
                            unicast;
                            labeled-unicast {
                                rib {
                                    inet.3;
                                }
                            }
                        }
                        export PE-1;
                        peer-as 20;
                        neighbor 34.1.1.2;
                    }
                }

     

     

    sorry



  • 28.  RE: EX routing issue

     
    Posted 10-31-2012 21:04

    Hi Rob,

     

    With this configs, you are explicitly saying that L-BGP routes coming from external peer 34.1.1.2 to be installed in inet.3 table. Similarly you are asking the local node to advertise the route from inet.3 table that matches export/default policy to external peer.

     

    Regards

    Surya

     

     



  • 29.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-31-2012 21:10

    hence the route advertised from R3 to peer is in inet.3  and it is family labeled-unicast,.so it send 1.1.1.1+y label to peer, and assign a local label in its own,once the traffic coming with label Y,it will use X to swap,am I correct?

     

    all of these happens because it will from the point of inet.3 ,right?



  • 30.  RE: EX routing issue

     
    Posted 10-31-2012 21:13

    Hi Rob,

     

    Did you mean 2.2.2.2 instead of 1.1.1.1, as I thought 2.2.2.2 to be the PE in the AS of R3?

     

    If that's what you meant, then you are right.

     

    Regards

    Surya



  • 31.  RE: EX routing issue

     
    Posted 10-31-2012 21:16

    Or let me put it this way, if 1.1.1.1 is the address for the PE within the AS of ASBR(R3), then it is correct.

     

    But I think I got the answer from your configs, it is 1.1.1.1 which is the PE.

     

                bgp {
                    group int {
                        type internal;
                        local-address 3.3.3.3;
                        family inet {
                            unicast;
                            labeled-unicast {
                                rib {
                                    inet.3;
                                }
                            }
                        }
                        export nhs;
                        neighbor 1.1.1.1;
                    }

     

    regards

    Surya



  • 32.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-31-2012 21:19

    thx



  • 33.  RE: EX routing issue

     
    Posted 10-31-2012 22:02

    Hi Rob,

    I believe we are almost there to set a record on no. of posts for a particular query Smiley Wink

    AFAIK the thumb rule with respect to IPv4-VPN/IPv4-Labeled/L2VPN BGP is that if there is a change in Protocol NH,
    then the node which is responsible for that change will advertise a new label.

    Based on the position of this node, the label gets assigned accordingly and the same is advertised to its peer.

    Case : PE where route is generated and advertised
        VPN BGP : Label would be other than implicit-null(3)/explicit-null(0) value. In case of vrf-table-label, it would usually be 16.
            Labeled BGP : Lable value be implicit-null(3) or explicit-null(0)
            L2VPN BGP : Label would be other than implicit-null(3)/explicit-null(0) value.

    Case : ASBR
              VPN/Labeled/L2VPN BGP : Generates new label for the prefix/route being received before it is advertised.

    Case : RR (without changing NH)
           VPN/Labeled/L2VPN BGP : No change in the label and same label is maintained while advertising.

    Case : RR (with self-NH)
        VPN/Labeled/L2VPN BGP : Generates new label for the prefix/route being received before it is advertised.


    Regards
    Surya



  • 34.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-31-2012 22:25

    thx yes,it will assign label for prefix and send prefix +lable to peer, after that,it will think about how to handle it when traffic with that label coming in this case,we export 1.1.1.1 which is inet.0 (there is a 1.1.1.1 in inet.3,but it will not use unless u set from protocol rsvp). it is not bgp or vpn,so it will use inet.0 but u can still use family labeled-unicast  rib inet.3 to make the junos to use entry in inet.3 when traffic with Y label coming 



  • 35.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-31-2012 22:40

    Hi Guys,

    Nice to see this thread is moving. I am sorry, I am busy with my work stuff. ( ofcourse it pays my bills!!!!)

     

    Regarding the other method which I mentioned earlier and in other post,

     

                    group ext {
                        type external;
                        family inet {
                            unicast;
                            labeled-unicast {
                                rib {
                                    inet.3;
                                }
                            }
                        }
                        export PE-1;
                        peer-as 20;
                        neighbor 34.1.1.2;
                    }
                }

     

    Here, we negotiate two NLRIs between peers.

    1) family inet unicast  <=> routes to and from inet.0 table

    2) family inet  labeled-unicast rib inet.3 <=> to and from inet.3 table.

     

     

    If you carefully examine the export policy, you can see that we have two different terms to export from inet.0 and inet.3.

     

    policy-statement rr-border-export {
            term 1 {
                from {
                    route-filter 10.255.255.4/32 exact;
                    route-filter 10.255.255.5/32 exact;
                    route-filter 10.255.255.6/32 exact;
                }
                then {
                    accept;
                }
            }
            term 2 {
                from {
                    rib inet.3;
                    route-filter 10.255.255.4/32 exact;
                    route-filter 10.255.255.5/32 exact;
                    route-filter 10.255.255.6/32 exact;
                }
                then {
                    accept;
                }
            }
        }

     

     

    by this way, you send route in one NLRI and labels with another NLRI.

     

    If you run "show bgp summary" you can see two NLRIs are associated with inet.0 and inet.3

     

    Regards,

    Moses N

     

     



  • 36.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-31-2012 22:46
    since this prefix is taken from inet.3,so when assign a label Y and send prefix +label to peer,it will also use lsp to swap the traffic incoming with Y label,right?


  • 37.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-31-2012 23:05

    Yes. Correct. It will use the LSP.



  • 38.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 10-31-2012 23:38

    ok,so I will summzie it like this when advertise prefix to peer:

    1)learnt from bgp, use entry inet.3 or inet.0 to decide whether pop(using inet.0 ) or swap(inet.3)

    2)learnt from igp(ospf),in our case  ,use inet.0

    3)take from entry in inet.3 ,so it will use inet.3 to handle the incoming traffic with the label



  • 39.  RE: EX routing issue
    Best Answer

    Posted 11-01-2012 03:25

    @Robbie wrote:

    ok,so I will summzie it like this when advertise prefix to peer:

    1)learnt from bgp, use entry inet.3 or inet.0 to decide whether pop(using inet.0 ) or swap(inet.3)

    2)learnt from igp(ospf),in our case  ,use inet.0

    3)take from entry in inet.3 ,so it will use inet.3 to handle the incoming traffic with the label


    Hi,

    Your post is not clear.

    But, we have discussed and answered all your questions.

     

    Regards,

    Moses N

     



  • 40.  RE: EX routing issue

    Posted 11-01-2012 03:11

    @Surya wrote:

    Hi Moses


    @mosesnehru wrote:

    Hi Surya,

    "labeled-unicat" session between R2 and R3 is used for advertising routes received from other AS ( from R5).

    Basically, R2 will learn the label-routes of other AS ( in this example 4.4.4.4/32 )  from R3 over this IBGP labeled-unicat session.

     

    Rgds,

    Moses N

     

     


    Right, my query was if R3 was advertising R2 address learnt via OSPF.

     

    Basically in this case, with R2 loopback address learnt from both OSPF and labeled-bgp( assuming R2 advertises via l-bgp and l-bgp rib is left to default as inet.0), then OSPF route would be active based on perference on R3 and if the export policy from R3 is to just pick R2's loopback address, then it would be OSPF route that would be picked up. Hence when we receive the traffic from R5, it would be mapped to OSPF path rather than BGP path.

     

    The other option would be to remove the export-policy on ASBR and make BGP to advertise-inactive L-BGP routes.

     

     

    Regards

    Surya


     

     

    Hi Surya,

    You are correct.

     

    Regards,

    Moses