1

I'm new to juniper technology and I'm trying to set up mpls vpn on vMX. Not sure if I'm missing something in configuration or if this is some kind of bug in vMX or if this is not supported on vMX. As you can see only local/direct routes and ospf routes learned from CE are installed in forwarding table, no BGP routes are in forwarding table. thanks for help

root@vMX1-PE> show route table vpn-uTik.inet.0 | no-more 

vpn-uTik.inet.0: 8 destinations, 8 routes (8 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both

10.0.1.0/30        *[Direct/0] 00:04:44
                    > via ge-0/0/1.0
10.0.1.1/32        *[Local/0] 00:04:45
                      Local via ge-0/0/1.0
10.0.3.0/30        *[BGP/170] 00:04:28, localpref 100, from 10.255.0.3
                      AS path: I, validation-state: unverified
                    > to 10.0.12.2 via em2.0, Push 299872, Push 299824(top)
10.1.0.1/32        *[Direct/0] 00:05:36
                    > via lo0.1
10.5.0.5/32        *[BGP/170] 00:04:28, localpref 100, from 10.255.0.3
                      AS path: I, validation-state: unverified
                    > to 10.0.12.2 via em2.0, Push 299824, Push 299824(top)
10.255.255.1/32    *[OSPF/10] 00:04:35, metric 11
                    > to 10.0.1.2 via ge-0/0/1.0
10.255.255.3/32    *[BGP/170] 00:04:28, MED 11, localpref 100, from 10.255.0.3
                      AS path: I, validation-state: unverified
                    > to 10.0.12.2 via em2.0, Push 299872, Push 299824(top)
224.0.0.5/32       *[OSPF/10] 00:05:41, metric 1
                      MultiRecv

root@vMX1-PE> show route forwarding-table table vpn-uTik    
Routing table: vpn-uTik.inet
Internet:
Destination        Type RtRef Next hop           Type Index    NhRef Netif
default            perm     0                    rjct      530     1
0.0.0.0/32         perm     0                    dscd      528     1
10.0.1.0/30        intf     0                    rslv      600     1 ge-0/0/1.0
10.0.1.0/32        dest     0 10.0.1.0           recv      598     1 ge-0/0/1.0
10.0.1.1/32        intf     0 10.0.1.1           locl      599     2
10.0.1.1/32        dest     0 10.0.1.1           locl      599     2
10.0.1.2/32        dest     0 52:54:0:12:34:56   ucst      608     4 ge-0/0/1.0
10.0.1.3/32        dest     0 10.0.1.3           bcst      597     1 ge-0/0/1.0
10.1.0.1/32        intf     0 10.1.0.1           locl      585     1
10.255.255.1/32    user     0 10.0.1.2           ucst      608     4 ge-0/0/1.0
224.0.0.0/4        perm     1                    mdsc      529     1
224.0.0.1/32       perm     0 224.0.0.1          mcst      525     3
224.0.0.5/32       user     1 224.0.0.5          mcst      525     3
255.255.255.255/32 perm     0                    bcst      526     1
  • 1
    so problem seems to be fixed! the issue was that i used em* interfaces instead of ge-0/0/* interfaces from the begining. later I had to use ge-0/0/* interfaces in routing instances as em* interfaces are not supported there but I was still using em* interfaces towards P routers. And it seems that em* interfaces are not supported by forwarding engine for labeled traffic as normal IP forwarding is working with any issues. Lesson learned, always use ge-0/0/* interfaces – pato Jan 3 '16 at 8:16
  • Did any answer help you? If so, you should accept the answer so that the question doesn't keep popping up forever, looking for an answer. Alternatively, you can provide your own answer and accept it. – Ron Maupin Aug 13 '17 at 0:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.