On 5/25/19 1:09 AM, George Wilkie wrote: > > That was my initial thought, although it needs a 2nd lookup. > The problem I hit though was I couldn't figure out how to make it work > when leaking from global into a VRF. I couldn't see how to indicate > a lookup in the global table. Is there a way to do this? > Using a loopback doesn't work, e.g. if 10.1.1.0/24 was on a global interface: > ip ro add vrf vrf-a 10.1.1.0/24 dev lo
That works for MPLS when you exit the LSP and deliver locally, so it should work here as well. I'll take a look early next week. > > It seemed if something new was needed, leaking the locals was neater approach? > I would prefer to avoid it if possible. VRF route leaking for forwarding does not have the second lookup and that is the primary use case. VRL with local delivery is a 1-off use case and you could just easily argue that the connection should not rely on the leaked route. ie., the control plane is aware of both VRFs, and the userspace process could use the VRF-B path.
