The MPLS-OPS Archive

[Spice Sylvia <falsesylvia@yahoo.co.uk>]

Hi Folks,

John ran this query sometime back and wanted to know
if there was an outcome to this 
:)

I was just wondering what is the final outcome of
this? Is it a bug?

a. Is treating a session between 2 VRFs/overlaping RTs
as an iBGP kind of session not correct?

b. and/or is treating the RD as a label (as it maps to
the next-hop) not valid?

-Sylvia

Subj: Strange Behaviour?

From: John Smith <jsmith4112003@yahoo.co.uk> 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:57:27 +0100 (BST) 
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:21:30 -0400 
To: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com 


Hello,
I have two VRFs A and B configured with over-lapping
Route Targets. Say, both have
100:100 as import and export. Both are bound to
separate interfaces eth1, and eth2.

Now I have a BGP peering over eth1 (VRF A) with some
remote router say R. All the routes
which this router learns from this peer are leaked to
VRF B (since they have overlapping
RTs). 

I observed that when i remove one of the routes from
Router R, my router removes that
route from VRF A table, but doesnt do that from VRF B
table. Isnt this a bug? OR am i
missing something?

IMHO my router should remove the route from both VRF A
and VRF B. 

ANy help in this regard will be appreciated.

Regards,
JS





	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

-------
The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml