RARE user and assistance email list

[Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <>]

>rsvp-te... we have auto-tunnel in cisco&freerouter,
>but that knob is not (yet) colorful in freerouter... imho this is what junos does by default?

 

In Junos also it is configured tunnel. RSVP automesh/dynamic-tunnel doesn’t support CT yet.

 

> so r3-r4 will be in isis, vpnv4 ibgp, and have 2 rsvp-te for the 2 colors,
>i'll place the tunnel-te to the two colored vrfs

 

Ok. Will the vpnv4 ibgp routes put traffic on the rsvp-te tunnels in the colored-vrfs?

 

What is the release we should use, to play around. Can you point us to the link?

 

Thanks

Kaliraj

From: mc36 <>
Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 11:10 PM
To: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <>, <>, Krzysztof Szarkowicz <>, Simon Leinen <>, Ivana Golub <>, Frédéric LOUI <>
Cc: Natrajan Venkataraman <>, Reshma Das <>, <>
Subject: Re: [freertr] [RARE-users] EANTC - BGP CT - Juniper-FreeRTR

[External Email. Be cautious of content]


first of all, forget about the config snippet, shit as hell :)

```
   r1                 r6
     > r3---r4---r5 <
   r2                 r7

r1 and r2 are cpes in vpnv4/vpnv6 vrfs of r3,
r3-r4 will have two rsvp-te tunels and vpnv4/vpnv6 ibgp,
r4-r5 will have a single bgp-ct
and r6 and r7 are cpes in vpnv4/vpnv6 vrfs of v5
```

 > Why rsvp-te tunnel end at r4?
so r3-r4 will be in isis, vpnv4 ibgp, and have 2 rsvp-te for the 2 colors,
i'll place the tunnel-te to the two colored vrfs and mutual-redistribute
this is the cisco way of doing rsvp-te... we have auto-tunnel in cisco&freerouter,
but that knob is not (yet) colorful in freerouter... imho this is what junos does by default?

 > Are there two more rsvp-te tunnels from r4-r5?
 >
so 2 from r4->r5 and 2 from r5->r4

 > And is there a bgp-ct session between r3-r4 also? With r4 doing nexthop-self?
 >
no, bgp-ct here only over ebgp in between r4-r5
r3-r4 will do vpnv4/vpnv6 exclusively, and redistribute heavily.... :)

br,
cs





On 2/15/23 08:02, Kaliraj Vairavakkalai wrote:
>>r3-r4 will have two rsvp-te tunels and vpnv4/vpnv6 ibgp,
>>r4-r5 will have a single bgp-ct
>
> Why rsvp-te tunnel end at r4? Are there two more rsvp-te tunnels from r4-r5?
>
> And is there a bgp-ct session between r3-r4 also? With r4 doing nexthop-self?
>
> Thanks
>
> Kaliraj
>
> *From: *mc36 <>
> *Date: *Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 10:49 PM
> *To: *Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <>, <>, Krzysztof Szarkowicz <>, Simon Leinen <>,
> Ivana Golub <>, Fr  d  ric LOUI <>
> *Cc: *Natrajan Venkataraman <>, Reshma Das <>, <>
> *Subject: *Re: [freertr] [RARE-users] EANTC - BGP CT - Juniper-FreeRTR
>
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>
>
> hi,
> let's have a different topology to answer your question:
>
>     r1                                 r6
>         > r3---r4---r5 <
>     r2                                 r7
>
> r1 and r2 are cpes in vpnv4/vpnv6 vrfs of r3,
> r3-r4 will have two rsvp-te tunels and vpnv4/vpnv6 ibgp,
> r4-r5 will have a single bgp-ct
> and r6 and r7 are cpes in vpnv4/vpnv6 vrfs of v5
>
> so this doable, but i don't have a complete test case for it, just in pieces,
> but i can quickly write you this topology as a test if that helps?
> br,
> cs
>
>
>
> On 2/15/23 07:42, Kaliraj Vairavakkalai wrote:
>>>rare/freertr used the neighbor 1.1.1.1 address-family knob whta controls, but the safis are similarly exclusive, only one of them is accepted:
>>
>> Yea, we noticed that during last hackathon. that     s ok, we can work with that.
>>
>> But my main question was this:
>>
>> Lets say there are two RSVP-TE-Tunnels (red, blue) between r1 to r2.
>>
>>>     red                                 red---r5
>>> r0-->r1====r2<--r4
>>> blue                                 blue
>>
>>> so in the above topology we can separate the two colors while using a single link in between r1 and r2 with 1 bgp-ct session...
>>
>> Can red bgp-ct routes put traffic on red-Tunnel. And blue-routes put traffic on blue-Tunnel?
>>
>> i.e. based on the mapping-community on the bgp-route, resolve bgp nexthop r2 over a red/blue-Tunnel.
>>
>> I thought that is the       Colorful resolution       functionality that arrived in spring. Sorry if I misunderstood. :)
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Kaliraj
>>
>> *From: *mc36 <>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 10:11 PM
>> *To: *Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <>, Krzysztof Szarkowicz <>, Simon Leinen <>, Ivana Golub
>> <>, Fr   d   ric LOUI <>
>> *Cc: *Natrajan Venkataraman <>, Reshma Das <>, <>
>> *Subject: *Re: [freertr] [RARE-users] EANTC - BGP CT - Juniper-FreeRTR
>>
>> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>>
>>
>>> (xr lifted this recently, whereas it's still true for xe and rare/freerouter)
>>>
>>
>>
>> c8000v-1(config)#router bgp 1
>> c8000v-1(config-router)#address-family ipv4 unicast
>> c8000v-1(config-router-af)#neighbor 1.1.1.1 send-label ?
>>             explicit-null     Advertise Explicit Null label in place of Implicit Null
>>             <cr>                                         <cr>
>>
>> c80000v-1(config-router-af)#neighbor 1.1.1.1 send-label
>>
>> so this knob is what "converts" this peering from ipv4 unicast to ipv4 labeled unicast, and obviously it's set or not... :)
>>
>> rare/freertr used the neighbor 1.1.1.1 address-family knob whta controls, but the safis are similarly exclusive, only one of them is accepted:
>>
>> sid#configure
>> sid(cfg)#router bgp4 123 vrf v3
>> sid(cfg-rtr)#neighbor 1.1.1.1 remote-as 321
>> sid(cfg-rtr)#neighbor 1.1.1.1 address-family unicast labeled
>> sid(cfg-rtr)#show running-config this
>> router bgp4 123 vrf v3
>>         neighbor 1.1.1.1 remote-as 321
>>         neighbor 1.1.1.1 address-family labeled
>>         exit
>> !
>>
>> sid(cfg-rtr)#
>>
>>
>> Juniper Business Use Only
>>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>

Juniper Business Use Only