Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

Route Leaking - Static route not making it into VRF Routing table?

Guys,

I am trying to configure a VRF configuration with route leaking.

We have the following:

Department A data vlan 50- global routing table 10.x.x.x

Department A voice vlan 70 - Global routing table 10.x.x.x

Department B data vlan 55 - VRF A 192.168.29.x

Department B voice vlan 75 - VRF A 192.168.29.x

I want the voice vlans to be able to communicate, but not the data.  Everything works so far except the voice network communication (hosts in global routing table can ping around each other and EIGRP works ok etc etc, and hosts in VRF A Can ping around each other and EIGRP works ok.  Hosts in global cannot ping VRF A hosts and vice versa)

My current configuration:

2#show run | in ip route

ip route 192.168.29.0 255.255.255.0 Vlan75

ip route vrf A 10.17.149.0 255.255.255.128 10.17.149.1

10.17.149.1 is the IP Address of the Vlan70 SVI.  I did this because it wouldnt take the command when I just put vlan70:

02(config)#$f A 10.17.149.0 255.255.255.128 vlan70

% For VPN routes, must specify a next hop IP address if not a point-to-point interface

I have however tried pointing it at an addressed serial interface and the static still doesnt make it into the VRF routing table.

I see a route to Vlan75 in the global routing table, but no matter what I do I dont see a static route to the 10 network back in the VRF routing table...what gives?

02#show ip route

S    192.168.29.0/24 is directly connected, Vlan75                <----------------------------------Exists properly

     10.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 9 subnets, 5 masks

C       10.17.149.128/26 is directly connected, Vlan71

C       10.17.148.128/27 is directly connected, Vlan40

C       10.17.148.160/27 is directly connected, Vlan90

C       10.17.149.192/26 is directly connected, Vlan91

C       10.17.148.192/26 is directly connected, Vlan60

C       10.17.149.0/25 is directly connected, Vlan70

C       10.17.148.0/25 is directly connected, Vlan50

C       10.17.162.44/30 is directly connected, Vlan100

D       10.17.163.16/29 [90/30720] via 10.17.162.46, 00:14:28, Vlan100

02#show ip route vrf A

Routing Table: A

C    192.168.29.0/24 is directly connected, Vlan75

C    192.168.28.0/24 is directly connected, Vlan55

     192.168.50.0/30 is subnetted, 1 subnets

C       192.168.50.0 is directly connected, Vlan101

*************NO ROUTE SHOWN BACK TO THE 10.17.149.0 NETWORK? ******************

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

Route Leaking - Static route not making it into VRF Routing tabl

Well with any kind of route, the next hop for the static must be known to the routing device via a connected interface or subnet.  Is the next hop of the route for the static in the VRF known to the router you are trying to configure it on?

5 REPLIES

Re: Route Leaking - Static route not making it into VRF Routing

Add "global" to the end o the static route.

Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPad App

New Member

Route Leaking - Static route not making it into VRF Routing tabl

No luck i'm afraid.... In fact, even if i use the command "ip route vrf UHL_DATA 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 1.1.1.1" i.e just adding a default route to that VRF, it still doesnt show up in the VRF's routing table.

Am I doing this correctly? How do you add a static route to a VRF?

02#show run | in ip route

ip route 192.168.29.0 255.255.255.0 Vlan75

ip route vrf UHL_DATA 10.17.149.0 255.255.255.128 10.17.162.46 global

02#show ip route vrf UHL_DATA

Routing Table: UHL_DATA

Codes: C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP

       D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area

       N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2

       E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2

       i - IS-IS, su - IS-IS summary, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2

       ia - IS-IS inter area, * - candidate default, U - per-user static route

       o - ODR, P - periodic downloaded static route

Gateway of last resort is not set

C    192.168.29.0/24 is directly connected, Vlan75

C    192.168.28.0/24 is directly connected, Vlan55

02#show ip route

Codes: C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP

       D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area

       N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2

       E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2

       i - IS-IS, su - IS-IS summary, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2

       ia - IS-IS inter area, * - candidate default, U - per-user static route

       o - ODR, P - periodic downloaded static route

Gateway of last resort is not set

S    192.168.29.0/24 is directly connected, Vlan75   <------------STATIC SHOWS UP IN GLOBAL TABLE

     1.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets

C       1.1.1.0 is directly connected, Loopback0

     10.0.0.0/25 is subnetted, 2 subnets

C       10.17.149.0 is directly connected, Vlan70

C       10.17.148.0 is directly connected, Vlan50

Route Leaking - Static route not making it into VRF Routing tabl

Well with any kind of route, the next hop for the static must be known to the routing device via a connected interface or subnet.  Is the next hop of the route for the static in the VRF known to the router you are trying to configure it on?

New Member

Route Leaking - Static route not making it into VRF Routing tabl

That was my problem, thanks Andrew.

I'm using GNS at the moment for a proof of concept, and when I started it this morning it decided a load of links were to non existant interfaces so i had to delete them from my .net  file.

I then forgot that I had two links going across a routed link so the connection to the next hop wasnt actualy up!

Thanks for your help

Route Leaking - Static route not making it into VRF Routing tabl

No problem glad to help, thanks for the rating.

4515
Views
0
Helpful
5
Replies
CreatePlease to create content