I see. When i do `ping -I vrf2` to address that was leaked from vrf1 it selects source address that's set as local in vrf1 routing table. Is this expected behavior? I guess, forwarding packets from vrf1 to vrf2 local address won't help here.
6 mar. 2021 - 17:12, David Ahern <dsah...@gmail.com>: > > On 3/2/21 3:57 AM, Greesha Mikhalkin wrote: > > Main goal is that 100.255.254.3 should be reachable from vrf2. But > > after this setup it doesn’t work. When i run `ping -I vrf2 > > 100.255.254.3` it sends packets from source address that belongs to > > vlan1 enslaved by vrf1. I can see in tcpdump that ICMP packets are > > sent and then returned to source address but they're not returned to > > ping command for some reason. To be clear `ping -I vrf1 …` works fine. > > I remember this case now: VRF route leaking works for fowarding, but not > local traffic. If a packet arrives in vrf2, it should get forwarded to > vrf1 and on to its destination. If the reverse route exists then round > trip traffic works.
