On 5/31/19 4:38 AM, George Wilkie wrote:
> What are your thoughts on creating a "vrfdefault" for "local" table?
>ip link add vrfdefault type vrf table local
>ip link set dev vrfdefault up
>ip ro add vrf vrfA 10.10.3.0/24 dev vrfdefault
>ip ro add 10.10.2.0/24 dev vrfA
>ip -6 ro
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 03:50:09PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 5/30/19 2:52 PM, George Wilkie wrote:
> > This doesn't work for me (again, not using namespaces).
> > For traffic coming in on vrf-b to a destination on 10.200.2.0,
> > I see ARPs going out for the destination on xvrf2/in on xvrf1,
>
On 5/30/19 2:52 PM, George Wilkie wrote:
> This doesn't work for me (again, not using namespaces).
> For traffic coming in on vrf-b to a destination on 10.200.2.0,
> I see ARPs going out for the destination on xvrf2/in on xvrf1,
> but nothing replies to it.
Is rp_filter set?
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 09:29:22PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> you are correct that use of loopback here for default VRF does not work
> -- the lookup code gets confused because it is a forward path (as
> opposed to MPLS which is a local input). I found a couple of solutions
> that work for default
On 5/27/19 2:34 AM, George Wilkie wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 09:13:13AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
>>> 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 lo
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 09:13:13AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> > 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'l
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 t
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 02:19:45PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> I think this codifies the use case:
> ip li add vrf-a up type vrf table 1
> ip route add vrf vrf-a unreachable default
> ip li add vrf-b up type vrf table 2
> ip route add vrf vrf-b unreachable default
> ip ru add pref 32765 f
On 5/24/19 2:05 AM, George Wilkie wrote:
> If have an interface in vrf A:
>
> 10.10.2.0/24 dev ens9 proto kernel scope link src 10.10.2.2
> local 10.10.2.2 dev ens9 proto kernel scope host src 10.10.2.2
>
> and want to leak it into vrf B, it is not sufficient to leak just
> the interface rout
