05-27-2021 08:44 AM
Hi
Hoping someone more clever then myself can help me workout why a route on the Palo Alto shown below (10.119.71.0) is add a route via the EXOS devices on the EOS switches as you would expect, but I am not seeing anything via the VSP.
I think its to do with the same routes via the VSP being seen as type 3 LSA’s?
In essence I am migrating the the L3 links on the firewalls from EXOS to the VSP’s. The whole Data Centre is run North of the firewall. So I want to be careful about moving the L3 links across so not to cause any disruption.
I don’t think there is anything necessarily wrong, as the VSP learned routes will I believe kick in when fully migrated across, but what to fully understand what I am seeing to be sure it is safe.
Many thanks in advance.
Martin
Solved! Go to Solution.
06-01-2021 08:22 AM
On close examination the Palo Alto is using a cost of 10, EXOS is using 14 and VOSS is using 20. So have come to an conclusion the EOS switch is installing the route via EXOS with a preference of 24 rather then 30 via VOSS.
What I expected to see in the EOS routing table (subject to not having a command like show alternative), was the additional route shown via VOSS under the EXOS route, but showing the higher cost - think that’s how its done in EOS. This is what has effectively thrown me off as I have no way of validating it (that I know)
Anyway, the plan is to add some config on the EXOS links to increase the cost to see if the route via the VOSS switch is installed. The premise is that generally everything seems to be OK, adjacencies are all up, routes are being shared, so in theory it should work.
Once I’ve done it and got the results I will post back.
05-27-2021 10:49 AM
Martin,
What are the neighbours on the VSP?
“show ip ospf neig”
05-27-2021 09:01 AM
Hi Mig,
Thanks for getting back.
Here is the output taken from VSP-CR1
show ip route alternative | 10.119.71
***********************************************************************************
Command Execution Time: Thu May 27 08:52:24 2021 GMT
************************************************************************************
=====================================================================================================
IP Route - GlobalRouter
=====================================================================================================
NH INTER
DST MASK NEXT VRF/ISID COST FACE PROT AGE TYPE PRF
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.119.71.0 255.255.255.0 172.20.251.65 GlobalRouter 20 3501 OSPF 0 IB 25
show ip ecmp max-path
************************************************************************************
Command Execution Time: Thu May 27 08:52:37 2021 GMT
************************************************************************************
====================================================================================================
ecmp-max-path Info - VRF "GlobalRouter" (Global Routing Table)
====================================================================================================
ecmp-max-path : 8
Which the output looks identical to just looking at the active routing table.
The route is in the VOSS switch, just seems the on the EOS switch it sees the same route learnt via the EXOS switches differently and VOSS - I think, and not sure why, or how to correct (if that is necessary).
Is it that the EOS switch sees the route via EXOS as interarea and VOSS as external? So EOS is just adding the more least expensive route?
05-27-2021 08:50 AM
Martin,
Probably related with ecmp.
Check this:
show ip route alternative
show ip ecmp max-path
Mig