I mean, if I have 10.1.1.2/24 configured on an interface, then how can I add another route with an implicit null out label?
Thanks, -nagp On Jun 10, 2017 08:10, "Nagaprabhanjan Bellari" <nagp.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Neale, > > Yes, 10.1.1.1 is a direct attached route, but it does not have the > implicit null explicitly configured. Is it mandatory? > > Thanks, > -nagp > > On Friday, June 9, 2017, Neale Ranns (nranns) <nra...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Hi nagp, >> >> >> >> That’s the correct way to do it. >> >> >> >> Does 10.1.1.1 in table 0 have out-labels? It needs then in order to be a >> resolution target for a labelled recursive. Implicit-null is the expected >> out-label if 10.1.1.1 is directly attached. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Neale >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *<vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io> on behalf of Nagaprabhanjan >> Bellari <nagp.li...@gmail.com> >> *Date: *Friday, 9 June 2017 at 14:30 >> *To: *vpp-dev <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> >> *Subject: *[SUSPICIOUS] [vpp-dev] Is this a valid route? >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I am trying to add the following route in VPP, but it is only getting a >> drop-dpo in "show ip fib": >> >> "ip route add table 2 4.4.4.4/32 >> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/13XjmUsXfAcVtsFEheLw8wZ39WD3SNgxlyOe1tfZRwNTnTbkat8sXvJM9NqiNJ7ni8fykpKNE64Y-WCIiGt18MHoHCe6qJJ2zVVOQTwvKzsE5bka2lbn4yWUh_g-DKxcQb37bKeg7LaUht6WWe6PXPxfi3izIvHWmeL-AsAMu_pXDNd3S6Zqp7HeUDC2MIfLzq9Iiit12gTZAcoQQRTrm4WJcovPN8p1Vlydsjl_-cV5v_rlJYp-WqyO9nAeGjiG5LrdDwbLPa5omQ0dgZlDIu2wCTTb9hjsivxpL_q3uhCKWHmQXEdB2eL2S-ODk5zn9/http%3A%2F%2F4.4.4.4%2F32> >> via 10.1.1.1 next-hop-table 0 out-label 300" >> >> I am trying to add 4.4.4.4/32 >> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/13XjmUsXfAcVtsFEheLw8wZ39WD3SNgxlyOe1tfZRwNTnTbkat8sXvJM9NqiNJ7ni8fykpKNE64Y-WCIiGt18MHoHCe6qJJ2zVVOQTwvKzsE5bka2lbn4yWUh_g-DKxcQb37bKeg7LaUht6WWe6PXPxfi3izIvHWmeL-AsAMu_pXDNd3S6Zqp7HeUDC2MIfLzq9Iiit12gTZAcoQQRTrm4WJcovPN8p1Vlydsjl_-cV5v_rlJYp-WqyO9nAeGjiG5LrdDwbLPa5omQ0dgZlDIu2wCTTb9hjsivxpL_q3uhCKWHmQXEdB2eL2S-ODk5zn9/http%3A%2F%2F4.4.4.4%2F32> >> in table 2 but its nexthop, 10.1.1.1, has to be resolved in table 0 and the >> packet has to be strapped a label while going out (the typical l3vpn case) >> >> Can you please tell me if this is the right way to do so? >> >> Thanks, >> >> -nagp >> >>
_______________________________________________ vpp-dev mailing list vpp-dev@lists.fd.io https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
