HSRP EIGRP TWO DEFAULT ROUTES

Hi,
I have a question concerning EIGRP routing on a L3 switch behind a HSRP HA pair of routers which connect to a WAN.
HSRP is operating as should be and when R1 fails, or an interface thereon, R2 becomes the active. All good.
However there are now two default routes in the route table on the L3 switch. One is routing traffic to the R2 real IP which is expected but also there is the old default route to R1's real IP.
Using EEM we can overcome this but is there another simpler method to prevent this occurring?
Thanks
F

F
If i understand correcty your LAN interfaces on the routers ie. the ones connecting to the L3 switch are running HSRP and you are also running EIGRP between the L3 switch and the routers.
If so you wouldn't usually have both solutions in use ie. you either -
1) use HSRP and point the default route on the L3 switch to the HSRP VIP
or
2) use EIGRP between the routers and the L3 switch. If a router or interface fails it should stop advertising the default route to the L3 switch.
However that sounds like it is not happening which suggests the default routes are not coming from the WAN.
So where are the default routes in EIGRP on the L3 switch coming from ?
Jon

Similar Messages

  • Can I use two default route in a router

    Hi
    I have a router which have two isp line.
    I want connected two differnt remote site by two isp line.
    now i have one default and another static.
    i can use two default route like this ?
    0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 201.222.103.x 0
    0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 201.221.102.y 1
    Thanks
    [email protected]

    hi
    I feel you wanted to know if you have 2 default routes already in place and about the impact if you put network specific routes.
    In this case you can have both the default routes in place in addition to the network specific static routes as i mentioned in my first mail.
    Since the most specific route will be used the traffic destined to your remote networks will flow accordingly as per your ip route statements.
    If your first link goes down the default route pointing the ISP-1 and the network sepcific route pointing the ISP-1 will go off and by default all the traffic will flow via the second interface which is connected to ISP-2 the behaviour is viceversa if your link to ISP-2 goes down.
    By this you will be atleast having some kinda reachability in case of any issues with the corresponding ISPs which is being used to reach the remote network than getting totally disconnected from the remote sites.
    regds

  • ASA receiving two default routes to internet via OSPF

    I am trying to test something for a client.  If I have an ASA that receives two default routes to the internet via OSPF, will it load balance those connections?  I have a feeling the answer is 'no.'  If that is the case, would the ASA would be at least able use the second internet connection if the primary one becomes saturated?
    TIA,
    Dan

    Yes, I know that the ASA cannot have default routes on multiple interfaces.  Both of the default routes are coming into the ASA's outside interface.  There would be two routers and the ASA in area 0 for OSPF.  The routers would have the default-information originate command in their OSPF configuration to push the default route out to the ASA.

  • Is it recommended to use HSRP or multiple default between Core Layer Switch and Customer Edge Router?

    My client is asking me for following
    Client is using Router as edge device. 2  WAN links from different service provider ( each 20 Mbps)  are getting terminated on the router. There are internal servers present in the network. Client want to make setup such that even if one wan link fails  internet users should be able to access web server. Moreover if the edge router fails there should be secondary edge device so that there is device redundancy ?
    As per my understanding, in this scenario we need to do static one - to - one natting(belonging to WAN interface subnet). If we use two routers as Customer edge ans if we connect core layer switch to these two router, is it recommended to use HSRP/VRRP/GLBP or two default route on core switch pointing to two routers with equal ad value. we will also track the wan link with help of ip sla.
    which is recommended solution  Router redundancy protocol or Default routes.?

    Just had another read of this post and some other points have come up.
    1) I assumed your secondary link was for redundancy but you talk about terminating both SP links on the same router in your first paragraph.
    Did you mean this or are you going to be terminating a link per router ?
    2) are you using the second router purely for backup ?
    3) something you didn't ask about but is relevant is the IP addressing. Are you using provider independent addressing or does each SP provide you with an address block.
    If it is the second then you are going to have an issue with the web server. The problem is which provider's IP do you use for the web server ie.
    if you use the primary provider IP then that will be the DNS record on the internet. If the primary router fails then the IP address will change on the secondary router but DNS will still be handing out the primary IP.
    If you enter both IPs (primary and secondary) into DNS then you would get load balancing but this means both links will be used and the secondary would not just be backup.
    In addition if one of the links fails then DNS does not know this so it will still be handing out the failed address as well as the address that is still up which means some connections will work and some won't.
    Jon

  • Load balancing using multiple default routes

    Hi Guys,
    I just want to ask does creating multiple default routes on my router provides load-balancing on my WAN side? As far as i know, for example if I have two default routes on my router and let say I have two users connecting to the internet, the first one might go to the first WAN link while the second user might go to the second WAN link.
    Thank you so much
    Rex

    there are the difference between, load balancing and load sharing..which we need to understand.
    load sharing means you have 2 users, user A and User B, user A wants to use ISP1 and user B wants to use ISP2. this is called load sharing. and can be achieved via PBR (Policy based routing).
    we should not try to use load balancing for Internet traffic with 2 different ISPs.

  • Configuring two default gateways

    Hello all,
    I would like to know if the CSS supports the configuration of two default routes and if it is supported by Cisco?
    The goal of this is to perform load balancing between the two default gateways.
    Thanks in advance for your answer.
    Regards.
    Alex

    Hi Alex,
    Yes, The CSS can handle two default gateways. Give the command twice. For eg.
    ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.10.10.1 1
    ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.10.10.2 2
    In this eg, the 10.10.10.1 will have priority as the metric is 1. However, if you want to load balance between them set the metric 1 for both of them.
    Hope this helps.
    Regards,
    Sagar

  • Injecting Global default Routes into a MPLS VPN

    Hi,
    I have a PE router running MPBGP which receives two default routes to the internet through an IPV4 BGP session. I need to import these routes in to a VRF and export them to different customer VRFs so that these VRFs are able to access Internet.
    I have used the feature called "BGP Support for IP Prefix Import from Global Table into a VRF Table" (URL:http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5207/products_feature_guide09186a00803b8db9.html#wp1063870)
    and imported these routes into a VRF.
    The issue is these routes are not propagated to any of the other PE routers which has customer VRFs configured.
    Has anybody tried this or a similar method to inject a dynamic default route into a MPLS VPN.
    Any suggestions would be highly appreciated.
    Thanks
    Subhash

    Hi Subhash,
    is there anything preventing you from terminating your internet BGP sessions in a VRF? Then everything should go smoothly, i.e. standard VRF import/export.
    So possibility A) create a VRF Internet, move bgp neighbor commands there and use filters preventing anything but the default route, then use route targets to distribute the default route into other VRFs.
    Possibility B) use static routing with packet leaking. Could look like this:
    ip route vrf Internet 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 global
    ip route vrf Internet 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 global 250
    ip route Serial0/0 !assuming this is where the customer router connects.
    Note: the BGP peer IP does not have to be directly connected! There has to be a LDP label for it though. so include your BGP peers network into your IGP and the backup will work, when you loose the link to the peer.
    Hope this helps! Please rate all posts.
    Regards, Martin

  • Metrics when redistributing a static default route into EIGRP?

    I saw a network working with EIGRP and resdistributing a static default route into it. I did not find the "default metrics" to redistribute into EIGRP but the static default route works and is redistributed. My understanding was that everytime you redistribute into EIGRP you needed to specify the metrics. How come this network is working? Can someone explain or point to a cisco document what explains it?
    Sample of the config:
    router eigrp 1
    redistribute static
    no autosummary
    network Y.Y.Y.Y
    ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 X.X.X.X
    Thank you,

    It's just one of those specific things about EIGRP and IOS, maybe a design choice. If they do use the interface as the seed metric then that would help explain why it's that way.
    Weirdly if you are using EIGRP VRF address family configuration on IOS and you redistribute statics you do need a metric.
    And I believe NXOS running on Nexus switches also needs a metric defined.
    Just one of those things you have to remember but it would be good if it was consistent.
    Jon

  • Import EIGRP default route only with network command

    Hi,
    Does anyone know why I can only import the default route learned by EIGRP (from a CE router) in the VPNV4 table with the command ?network 0.0.0.0? under the address family? Is this the correct behavior?
    router bgp 100
    address-family ipv4 vrf red
    redistribute eigrp 200
    no synchronization
    network 0.0.0.0
    exit-address-family
    PE9(config-router-af)#do show ip route vrf red 0.0.0.0
    Routing entry for 0.0.0.0/0, supernet
    Known via "eigrp 200", distance 90, metric 547840, candidate default path, type internal
    Redistributing via bgp 100, eigrp 200
    Last update from 91.91.91.1 on FastEthernet0/0.91, 00:04:11 ago
    Routing Descriptor Blocks:
    * 91.91.91.1, from 91.91.91.1, 00:04:11 ago, via FastEthernet0/0.91
    Route metric is 547840, traffic share count is 1
    Total delay is 20400 microseconds, minimum bandwidth is 100000 Kbit
    Reliability 255/255, minimum MTU 1500 bytes
    Loading 1/255, Hops 4
    PE9(config-router-af)#do show ip bgp vpnv4 vrf red 0.0.0.0
    % Network not in table
    PE9(config-router-af)#
    PE9(config-router-af)#network 0.0.0.0
    PE9(config-router-af)#
    PE9(config-router-af)#do show ip bgp vpnv4 vrf red 0.0.0.0
    BGP routing table entry for 91:91:0.0.0.0/0, version 1068
    Paths: (1 available, best #1, table red)
    Flag: 0x820
    Advertised to update-groups:
    2
    Local
    91.91.91.1 (via red) from 0.0.0.0 (9.9.9.9)
    Origin IGP, metric 547840, localpref 100, weight 32768, valid, sourced, local, best
    Extended Community: RT:118:118 Cost:pre-bestpath:128:547840
    0x8800:32768:0 0x8801:200:522240 0x8802:65284:25600 0x8803:65281:1500
    mpls labels in/out 28/nolabel
    PE9(config-router-af)#
    Thanks,
    Marcelo

    Hi Marcelo,
    Yes this is normal, a default route unlike any other routes is not redistributed between routing protocols by default, in the case of BGP you have 2 options, either use a network command and make sure that the route is in the routing table (via EIGRP in your case), or use redistribute + default-information originate, you can test this by removing the network command and adding the default-information originate under the address family.
    HTH,
    Mohammed Mahmoud.

  • Two hsrp on two interface two router

    It is possible to have two HSRP on two interfaces on two routers ?
    ROUTER 1
    track 1 interface GigabitEthernet0/1 line-protocol
    interface GigabitEthernet0/0
    ip address 172.16.1.11 255.255.0.0
    ip nat inside
    ip virtual-reassembly
    duplex auto
    speed auto
    standby 10 ip 172.16.1.10
    standby 10 priority 110
    standby 10 preempt
    standby 10 authentication crs-siss
    standby 10 track 1 decrement 20
    interface GigabitEthernet0/1
    ip address 95.14.60.222 255.255.255.224
    ip access-group 116 in
    ip nat outside
    ip virtual-reassembly
    duplex auto
    speed auto
    standby 20 ip 95.14.60.221
    standby 20 priority 110
    standby 20 preempt
    standby 20 authentication crs-siss
    standby 20 track 2 decrement 20
    =============================================
    ROUTER 2
    track 1 interface GigabitEthernet0/1 line-protocol
    interface GigabitEthernet0/0
    ip address 172.16.1.12 255.255.0.0
    ip nat inside
    ip virtual-reassembly
    duplex auto
    speed auto
    standby 10 ip 172.16.1.10
    standby 10 priority 110
    standby 10 preempt
    standby 10 authentication crs-siss
    standby 10 track 1 decrement 20
    interface GigabitEthernet0/1
    ip address 95.14.60.223 255.255.255.224
    ip access-group 116 in
    ip nat outside
    ip virtual-reassembly
    duplex auto
    speed auto
    standby 20 ip 95.14.60.221
    standby 20 priority 110
    standby 20 preempt
    standby 20 authentication crs-siss
    standby 20 track 2 decrement 20
    It is correct ???
    thank you

    hello john
    on router 1 I have to put
    ROUTER 1
    track 1 interface GigabitEthernet0/1 line-protocol
    track 2 interface GigabitEthernet0/0 line-protocol
    interface GigabitEthernet0/0
    standby 10 track 1 decrement 20
    interface GigabitEthernet0/1
    standby 20 track 2 decrement 20
    =============================================
    and on router 2 I have to put
    ROUTER 2
    track 1 interface GigabitEthernet0/1 line-protocol
    track 2 interface GigabitEthernet0/0 line-protocol
    interface GigabitEthernet0/0
    standby 10 track 1 decrement 20
    interface GigabitEthernet0/1
    standby 20 track 2 decrement 20
    correct ???

  • Can you help? Two dialer interfaces with IP SLA for default route failover - issues

    I have an issue with a Cisco 2821, it has an ADSL2+ HWIC  whose ATM interfaces is linked to dialer 1 and a Gi0/1 interface with a pppoe client which is linked to dialer 2.  Both dialer interfaces are up with their respective IP addresses.  If the ADSL on dialer 1 fails i want the IP SLA to kick and and replace the default route for dialer 1 with one for dialer 2.
    This config works if you manually shut down the dialer 1 interface, it injects the default route for dialer 2 and then when you unshut the interface, the default route for dialer 1 comes back.  The problem i have is if you take out the cable for the ATM interface and take it down, it does not take the route out the routing table and the default route for dialer2,  which works if you just shut down dialer 1 does not appear.
    whats the difference between shutting down dialer1 and it fails over the default route and taking the cable out then it does not?
    Here is my config, i'm sure its something simple i'm doing wrong, can anyone help???
    version 12.4
    service timestamps debug datetime msec
    service timestamps log datetime msec
    no service password-encryption
    hostname Router
    boot-start-marker
    boot-end-marker
    logging message-counter syslog
    enable secret 5 $1$qOOJ$HV5AH6US/YZMuCGPYp3pP.
    no aaa new-model
    dot11 syslog
    ip source-route
    ip cef
    ip dhcp excluded-address 192.168.0.1
    ip dhcp pool pool1
       network 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0
       default-router 192.168.0.1
       dns-server 188.92.232.50 188.92.232.100
    no ip domain lookup
    no ipv6 cef
    multilink bundle-name authenticated
    voice-card 0
     no dspfarm
    archive
     log config
      hidekeys
    track 1 ip sla 1 reachability
    interface GigabitEthernet0/0
     description Gi0/30 Local LAN
     ip address 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.0
     ip verify unicast reverse-path
     no ip redirects
     no ip unreachables
     no ip proxy-arp
     ip flow ingress
     ip nat inside
     ip virtual-reassembly
     no ip mroute-cache
     duplex auto
     speed auto
     snmp trap ip verify drop-rate
     no mop enabled
    interface GigabitEthernet0/1
     no ip address
     duplex auto
     speed auto
     pppoe enable group global
     pppoe-client dial-pool-number 2
    interface ATM0/2/0
     description ATM0_DSL
     no ip address
     no ip redirects
     no ip unreachables
     no ip proxy-arp
     ip flow ingress
     logging event atm pvc state
     logging event subif-link-status
     no atm ilmi-keepalive
     dsl operating-mode auto
     dsl enable-training-log
     pvc 0/38
      encapsulation aal5mux ppp dialer
      dialer pool-member 1
    interface Dialer1
     ip address negotiated
     no ip redirects
     no ip unreachables
     no ip proxy-arp
     ip mtu 1492
     ip nat outside
     ip virtual-reassembly
     encapsulation ppp
     dialer pool 1
     keepalive 1 3
     no cdp enable
     ppp lcp predictive
     ppp authentication pap chap callin
     ppp chap hostname ********@ccsleeds.net
     ppp chap password 0 ********
     ppp pap sent-username *******@ccsleeds.net password 0 ********
    interface Dialer2
     ip address negotiated
     no ip redirects
     no ip unreachables
     no ip proxy-arp
     ip mtu 1492
     encapsulation ppp
     dialer pool 2
     keepalive 1 3
     no cdp enable
     ppp lcp predictive
     ppp authentication pap chap callin
     ppp chap hostname **********@adsllogin.co.uk
     ppp chap password 0 *********
     ppp pap sent-username *********@adsllogin.co.uk password 0 ***********
    ip forward-protocol nd
    ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Dialer1 track 1
    ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Dialer1
    ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Dialer2 10
    no ip http server
    no ip http secure-server
    ip nat inside source list 1 interface Dialer1 overload
    ip sla 1
    icmp-echo 8.8.8.8 source-interface di1
    timeout 1000
    threshold 100
    frequency 3
    ip sla schedule 1 life forever start-time now
    access-list 1 permit 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.255
    control-plane
    gatekeeper
     shutdown
    line con 0
    line aux 0
    line vty 0 4
     password test
     login
    scheduler allocate 20000 1000
    end

    Sure that EEM can shut/unshut interface...you have "event track" in EEM for monitoring track events...for example:
    event manager applet test
    event track 1 state down
    action 1.0 command "enable"
    action 1.1 command "conf t"
    action 1.2 command "interfac dialer 1"
    action 1.3 command "shut"
    action 1.4 syslog "Dialer 1 down!!!"
    action 1.5 end
    This would be an example from head :)
    You would need another EEM similar to this one for unshutting interface with "event track 1 state up" for bringing interface up again.
    Again as I said you would need to test this before putting in production and you would maybe need to tweak this a little bit acording to your needs...
    BR,
    Dragan

  • Multiple instances of EIGRP or static routes

    I'm building a network which needs to have All but one of it's private networks pass through a DMVPN, all the routes are advertised through EIGRP, that part works great!
    I have a private VLAN that only has access onto the internet, the address is Nat'ed over to a public IP address. Each router, there's six of them, are neighbors to two other routers. The furthest router to the internet has to go through three routers to get to the internet. My current idea is to use static routes on all the routers to the Internet gateway router. Then let recursive routing sort out each hop. What I would rather do is have EIGRP do all that. I really don't want to mess with the EIGRP that's running for the DMVPN tunnels, I'd like to have another instance of EIGRP run on the routers that will route the users to the Internet.
    Does anyone have any thoughts concerning this design.
    Thanks.
    Mitch

    Mitch
    I am not clear about what you are attempting to achieve and not very clear about the topology. So my answer may or may not be on target. If it is not perhaps you can help us understand a little better what is involved.
    I believe that what you are saying is that you have an existing network with multiple locations connected over DMVPN and that you run EIGRP as the routing protocol for that network. I believe you are also saying that there is one network segment which needs access to the Internet but should not be able to access the other parts of your network.
    You say that the address of this other segment is NATed but are not clear whether the translation is ont the router where the segment is located or is on the Internet gateway router.
    Probably the traditional solution for this would be to provide a default route for this segment pointing toward the Internet gateway router, to have a route on the Internet gateway router (and other routers along the path toward where the network is located), and a series of access lists on each router along the way which allows passage to the Internet and denies access to local resources.
    I would propose a somewhat different solution. I believe that it would work if you configure a GRE tunnel between the router where the segment is located and the Internet Gateway router. On the router where the segment is located you could do Policy Based Routing to send traffic from the private segment to the Internet over the GRE tunnel (which effectively isolates it from your other resources). You might want Policy Based Routing on the Internet gateway router to be sure that traffic from the private segment was forwarded only to the Internet (though you might not need that). The Internet gateway router could have a route (probably a static route) which sends traffic to the private segment over the GRE tunnel.
    Let us know what you think of this. And if it is off the mark perhaps you could clarify a bit.
    HTH
    Rick

  • Distribute list in Nexus 7K to allow only default route

    Hi All,
    We are about to migrate our core routers into two Nexus 7Ks with four VDCs each.
    I was planning to permit only the default route (0.0.0.0) into the building aggregation switch (Cisco 6509). I planned to use distribute-list as I have done it in IOS and I could allow it through any specific interface I want.
    Well, how do I do that in Nexus 7K? I don't see any distrubute list option. I can use prefix list, but then how do I specify the particular interface?
    Many thanks in advance.
    Mondal
    CCIE #29034

    Well, I found my own answer!
    Here is the command that goes on the Interface. I kept typing IP eigrp and hence did not get any option! Thanks for looking. You do offset-list the same way.
    ip distribute-list eigrp Test1 route-map EigrpTest in

  • ASA 5505 - 2 Internet Connections, Problems with the Default Route

    Hey there,
    i have a Problem at a Customer Site at the moment. The customer uses an ASA 5505 with two internet connections attached to it. On the first connection (which is the only one in use at the moment) he has some Static-PAT's from Outside to Inside where he translates different services to the internal servers. He also has a site-2-site VPN terminating there and AnyConnect.
    He now wants to switch the Internet Traffic from Inside to the new Internet Connection. Therefore changing the default route to that new ISPs Gateway. The problem now is, that no traffic recieved on the old "outside" Interface is transmitted back out of that old "outside" Interface. And this happens although the "same-security permit intra-interface" command is set.
    Can you tell me what's wrong here? For every Static-PAT from outside to inside there is also a dynamic PAT from inside to outside. But the ASA seems to ignore this. I have not looked into the Logs yet, was too busy finding the problem because i had no real time window to test on the productive ASA.
    Can it be achieved in any way? Having a default route on the ASA which leads any traffic to the second internet connection while still having connections on the first internet connection where no explicit route can be set? Because connections arrive from random IPs?
    Many thanks for your help in advance!
    Steffen

    Phillip, indeed , I have as well read may comments,it all depends on your environment as they all differ from one another, you best bet is to have a good solid plan for upgrade and fall back. You do have a justification to upgrade for features needed, so I would suggest the following:
    1- Do a search again in forum for ASA code upgrades and look at comments from users that have gone through this process and note their impact in fuctionality if any. I believe this is good resource to collect information .
    2- Very important , look into release notes for a particular version. For example version 8.0, look into open CAVEATS usually at the end of the link page, reading the open bugs gives you clues what has not yet been resolved for that particular code and if in fact could impact you in your environment, it is possible that a particular bug does not realy apply to your environment becuase you have yet not implemented that particualr configuration. Usually we all try to aim towards a GD (General Deployment) code which is what we all understand is most stable but not necesarily means you have to be stack in that code waiting for another GD release, in my personal experience I have upgraded our firewall from 7.2 to 8.0(3) long ago and had no issues, and recently upgraded to 8.0(4)when it was first release in August this year.
    Release notes
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6120/prod_release_notes_list.html
    3- AS a good practice precaution -
    a-Backup firewall configs in clear text as well as via tftp code.
    b-Backup running code and ASDM version code currently running in firewall.
    c- Save the output of " show version " to have as reference for all the feature licenses you currently have running as asll as activation keys - good info to have to compare with after upgrade.
    d- Ensure that the code you will be using to upgrade also uses correct ASDM version code.
    I think with thorough assesment and preparation you can indeed minimize impact.
    Rgds
    Jorge

  • UNABLE TO INJECT A STATIC DEFAULT ROUTE FROM PE????

    UNABLE TO INJECT A STATIC DEFAULT ROUTE FROM PE????
    Description:
    I am unable to get a static default route via MPBGP session for a vrf, any other route redistributed the same way is getting through.
    Just the static default route isn't ????
    1>
    SOURCE PE WHERE IS THE ROUTE REDISTRIBUTED:
    pe1#
    router bgp 4755
    bgp router-id 10.10.10.103
    no bgp default ipv4-unicast
    bgp log-neighbor-changes
    neighbor 10.10.10.100 remote-as 4755
    neighbor 10.10.10.100 update-source Loopback0
    address-family vpnv4
    neighbor 10.10.10.100 activate
    neighbor 10.10.10.100 send-community extended
    exit-address-family
    address-family ipv4 vrf B
    redistribute static <<<<<<<<<<<<<< STATIC REDIS
    no auto-summary
    no synchronization
    exit-address-family
    address-family ipv4 vrf A
    redistribute static <<<<<<<<<<<<<< STATIC REDIS
    no auto-summary
    no synchronization
    exit-address-family
    ip classless
    ip route vrf A 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Serial1/0 192.168.1.2 global <<<< STATIC ROUTE POINTING THE GLOBAL CONTEXT INTERFACE
    ip route vrf B 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Serial1/0 192.168.1.2 global <<<< STATIC ROUTE POINTING THE GLOBAL CONTEXT INTERFACE
    DESTINATION PE HERE I CANNOT SEE THE STATIC DEFAULT ROUTE:
    pe3(config-router-af)#do sh ip bgp vpnv4 all
    BGP table version is 11, local router ID is 10.10.10.103
    Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal,
    r RIB-failure, S Stale
    Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
    Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path
    Route Distinguisher: 4755:1 (default for vrf A)
    *>i172.16.1.0/30 10.10.10.101 0 100 0 ?
    *>i172.16.2.0/30 10.10.10.102 0 100 0 ?
    *>i172.16.10.0/24 10.10.10.101 2297856 100 0 ?
    *>i172.16.20.0/24 10.10.10.102 2297856 100 0 ?
    *>i172.16.200.0/24 10.10.10.102 2170112 100 0 ?
    Route Distinguisher: 4755:2 (default for vrf B)
    *>i172.16.1.0/30 10.10.10.101 0 100 0 ?
    *>i172.16.2.0/30 10.10.10.102 0 100 0 ?
    *>i172.16.10.0/24 10.10.10.101 2297856 100 0 ?
    *>i172.16.20.0/24 10.10.10.102 2297856 100 0 ?
    *>i172.16.200.0/24 10.10.10.102 2170112 100 0 ?
    THE STAITC ROUTE IS REDISTRIBUTED TO LOCAL VRF CONTXT ASWELL AS WE CAN SEE:
    pe3(config-router-af)#do sh ip route vrf A
    Routing Table: A
    Codes: C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
    D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area
    N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2
    E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2
    i - IS-IS, su - IS-IS summary, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2
    ia - IS-IS inter area, * - candidate default, U - per-user static route
    o - ODR, P - periodic downloaded static route
    Gateway of last resort is 192.168.1.2 to network 0.0.0.0
    172.16.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 5 subnets, 2 masks
    B 172.16.200.0/24 [200/2170112] via 10.10.10.102, 00:00:23
    B 172.16.20.0/24 [200/2297856] via 10.10.10.102, 00:00:23
    B 172.16.10.0/24 [200/2297856] via 10.10.10.101, 00:00:23
    B 172.16.1.0/30 [200/0] via 10.10.10.101, 00:00:23
    B 172.16.2.0/30 [200/0] via 10.10.10.102, 00:00:23
    S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 192.168.1.2, Serial1/0
    Hope I am clear in explaining the issue...
    Thanks,
    Dara

    Hehehe :)
    "Unfortunately" that's true !!!!
    This could have been the last thing that I try.
    Getting he techs work, protocols work is fine.
    But if get to make myself understand the logic behind adding this command as well than ... :(
    Thanks a lot,

Maybe you are looking for