On 1/3/20 5:09 PM, [email protected] wrote:
From: cisco-nsp <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Bryan
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 2:37 PM
I've been attempting to lab up an ASR9001 running 5.3.4 for a PoC scenario
of
routing between two internal VRFs: "default" and "peering".
You can probably guess the use-case.
While I've been successful in getting each VRF to talk to the things that
particular VRF should talk to, getting the two VRFs to talk amongst
themselves has been challenging.
Installing specific static routes between the two VRFs works, but it
doesn't
scale.
I think what you're looking for is:
vrf PEERING address-family ipv4 unicast import from default-vrf route-policy
RP_V4_STUFF_FROM_DEFAULT_TO_PEERING_VRF [advertise-as-vpn]
vrf PEERING address-family ipv4 unicast export to default-vrf route-policy
RP_V4_STUFF_FROM_PEERING_TO_DEFAULT_VRF
adam
Yeah -- I have that, and I can see routes in the "default" VRF imported
from "peering" with a "(nexthop in vrf Peering)" and a valid nexthop.
However, in the "peering" VRF, I see routes but the next-hop shows up as
Null0 unless I add a static route. (Probably should've mentioned this in
the original post.)
So yeah -- basically I have a next-hop that works in one direction
(default -> peering), but not in the other (peering -> default).
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
