×

Warning message

  • Cisco Support Forums is in Read Only mode while the site is being migrated.
  • Cisco Support Forums is in Read Only mode while the site is being migrated.

Route leaking between global routing table and VRF

Unanswered Question
May 7th, 2014
User Badges:

Hello,

I have the following topology:

MPLS Scenario

What I'm trying to do is to configure a MPLS to connect HQ and Branch1. That works perfectly. What doesn't work is that I also want to connect Branch 2 with HQ but trough a site-to-site VPN, and since network of HQ is in a VRF I can't reach it from Branch2.

I tried leaking the Branch2 network using static routes, route-maps with prefix-list, redistributing them inside the EIGRP process that is running between the SP1 and Branch1 routers, importing them in the VRF process and nothing seems to work.

This is the configuration I have on SP1

ip vrf customer
 rd 100:1
 import ipv4 unicast map redis

 

interface FastEthernet1/0  INTERFACE GOING TO HQ CLIENT
 ip vrf forwarding customer
 ip address 196.252.168.14 255.255.255.248
 duplex half
!
interface FastEthernet2/0  INTERFACE GOING TO BRANCH2 CLIENT
 ip address 196.252.168.22 255.255.255.248
 duplex half

 

ip route 196.252.168.8 255.255.255.248 FastEthernet1/0
ip route vrf customer 196.252.168.16 255.255.255.248 196.252.168.17

 

ip prefix-list red seq 5 permit 196.252.168.16/29
!

route-map redis permit 10

 match ip address prefix-list red

 

Thanks ahead for your help, I really appreciate it.

 

 

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.
miguelangeljma Wed, 05/07/2014 - 19:54
User Badges:

I just figured out the solution haha, right after posting this discussion. Turns out that this IOS wanted me to put both the outgoing interface AND the next hop address to work. Just modified that static route from 

ip route vrf customer 196.252.168.16 255.255.255.248 196.252.168.17

TO

ip route vrf customer 196.252.168.16 255.255.255.248 FastEthernet2/0 196.252.168.17

and everything started to work perfectly.

Thanks for at least looking into this discussion hehe.

Actions

This Discussion