Wow! Thanks for a great reply!! :-) -nagp
On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Neale Ranns (nranns) <nra...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > Hi nagp, > > > > It can be added with: > > ip route add 10.1.1.1 via 10.1.1.1 <INTERFACE> out-label imp-null > > > > It is mandatory whenever there is a labelled recursive that there is also > an LSP to the next-hop. For example, given; > > ip route 1.1.1.1/32 via 10.1.1.1 out-label 44 > > it is router 10.1.1.1 that has advertised 44 as the label for 1.1.1.1/32, > therefore it is ONLY 10.1.1.1 that should see packets with the label 44. > > If we then have; > > ip route 10.1.1.1/32 via 192.168.1.1 Eth0 > > if we allowed that route to be the resolution target for 1.1.1.1/32 then > we would send packets with label 44 to 192.168.1.1 which would in turn drop > them, or worse mis-forward them, since label 44 means something different. > > But give the route its own labels; > > Ip route 10.1.1.1/32 via 192.168.1.1 Eth0 out-label 55 > > And we now have an LSP to 10.1.1.1, any packet we send via 192.168.1.1 > will have 55 as the out label, and we are golden. > > > > The same applies when the next-hop is directly attached. There needs to be > an LSP to reach the next-hop – since it’s directly attached imp-null is the > out-label. > > > > Regards, > > neale > > > > *From: *Nagaprabhanjan Bellari <nagp.li...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Saturday, 10 June 2017 at 03:50 > *To: *"Neale Ranns (nranns)" <nra...@cisco.com> > *Cc: *vpp-dev <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> > *Subject: *Re: Is this a valid route? > > > > 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
