- Community Home
- >
- Networking
- >
- Switching and Routing
- >
- Comware Based
- >
- Blackhole Route in FIB
Comware Based
1820648
Members
2943
Online
109626
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
back
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
back
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-23-2019 08:08 AM - edited 12-23-2019 08:09 AM
12-23-2019 08:08 AM - edited 12-23-2019 08:09 AM
Blackhole Route in FIB
I'm having reachability issues in an BGP-L3VPN MPLS test environment, and I've noticed that the unreachable prefixes exist in the FIB with the Blackhole flag.
[EDITED]
[LAB-PE3] dis ip routing-table vpn-instance TEST-VRF
Destinations : 24 Routes : 29
Destination/Mask Proto Pre Cost NextHop Interface
10.64.8.0/24 BGP 255 0 10.64.2.1 HGE1/1/25
10.64.9.0/24 BGP 255 0 10.64.2.1 HGE1/1/25
10.66.8.0/24 BGP 255 0 10.64.0.8 HGE1/1/25
10.66.9.0/24 BGP 255 0 10.64.0.8 HGE1/1/25
[LAB-PE3] dis fib vpn-instance TEST-VRF
Destination count: 24 FIB entry count: 36
Flag:
U:Useable G:Gateway H:Host B:Blackhole D:Dynamic S:Static
R:Relay F:FRR
Destination/Mask Nexthop Flag OutInterface/Token Label
10.64.8.0/24 10.64.2.68 UBGR HGE1/1/25 24256
10.64.9.0/24 10.64.2.68 UBGR HGE1/1/25 24256
10.66.8.0/24 10.64.0.8 UGR 414 24117
10.66.9.0/24 10.64.0.8 UGR 414 24117
- The above is taken from PE3.
- PE1, PE2 and PE3 all connect directly to RR1.
- PE1 is injecting the 10.66 prefixes and peers with the RR using a loopback IP (10.64.0.8).
- PE2 is injecting the 10.64 prefixes and peers with the RR using the physical interface IP (10.64.2.1).
- The 10.66 prefixes are reachable, the 10.64 ones are not.
- Everyone blackholes PE2's routes.
- PE3 has a FIB next-hop of 10.64.2.68 for PE2s routes which is (PE3's next-hop on the RR)
- If I change PE2 to "connect-interaface loopback X", then all the problems are resolved.
I can't work out why this is happening.
Any ideas?
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
Company
Learn About
News and Events
Support
© Copyright 2025 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP