Quantcast
Channel: All Routing posts
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 8688

Re: sham link route hidden in the vpn table

$
0
0

Reason is as per below definition in RFC 4577:

 

4.2.7.4.  Routing and Forwarding on Sham Links

 

   If a PE determines that the next hop interface for a particular route

   is a sham link, then the PE SHOULD NOT redistribute that route into

   BGP as a VPN-IPv4 route.

 

   Any other route advertised in an LSA that is transmitted over a sham

   link MUST also be redistributed (by the PE flooding the LSA over the

   sham link) into BGP.  This means that if the preferred (OSPF) route

   for a given address prefix has the sham link as its next hop

   interface, then there will also be a "corresponding BGP route", for

   that same address prefix, installed in the VRF.  Per Section 4.1.2,

   the OSPF route is preferred.  However, when forwarding a packet, if

   the preferred route for that packet has the sham link as its next hop

   interface, then the packet MUST be forwarded according to the

   corresponding BGP route.  That is, it will be forwarded as if the

   corresponding BGP route had been the preferred route.  The

   "corresponding BGP route" is always a VPN-IPv4 route; the procedure

   for forwarding a packet over a VPN-IPv4 route is described in [VPN].

 

   This same rule applies to any packet whose IP destination address is

   the remote endpoint address of a sham link.  Such packets MUST be

   forwarded according to the corresponding BGP route.

 

Please marks this as accepted solution ,if it solves your question


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 8688

Trending Articles



<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>