Customer A is complaining that routes advertised from the CE2 router are not being received on the CE1 router. The physical topology of the network is CE1-PE1-PE2-CE2. The CE1-PE1 subnet is 172.16.1.0/24. The CE2-PE2 subnet is 172.16.2.0/24. PE1’s loopback is 192.168.3.1 and PE2’s loopback is 192.168.4.1.Referring to the output in the exhibit, what is the problem?
A.
No LSP exists between PE1 and PE2.
B.
Route targets are not properly configured.
C.
as-override is not configured in the VRFs.
D.
family inet-vpn is not configured on the PEs.
This is question looks like http://www.aiotestking.com/juniper/2012/04/what-is-the-problem-11/
But the answers are different. Who can verify them ?
I think “No LSP exists between PE1 and PE2” is precise.
0
0
Correct answer is A. Missing inet.3 table.
0
0
The difference is in hidden route.
In this question only Option A can result in hidden route received.
0
0
Asi es para que las rutas bgp-vpnv4 se activen en la tabla de rutas de la instancia debe existir un next-hop valido para este caso a traves de un lsp-mpls en la tabla inet.3 por eso la respuesta es A.
En la pregunta http://www.aiotestking.com/juniper/2012/04/what-is-the-problem-11/ aca la tabla no muestra alguna ruta hidden, por lo tanto solo nos queda pensar que es un problema en el route-target import por que solo 2 rutas se activan (la conectada y la ruta del CE).
Salu2
0
0
There is no inet.3 table present so LSP does not exist here.
0
0