Are you used to Cisco IOS kit and trying to make a GRE Tunnel extend an Overlay VRF (or Routing Instance), using Junos SRX kit, and getting weird errors like this:
(errno=1000) create nsp tunnel failed 1 (errno=1000) tunnel session add(gr-0/0/0) failed
Then read on, dear friend - this post's for you.
This is what we're trying to achieve, namely:
- Underlay Network
- MPLS IP VPN with own BGP/IGP routing setup
- Two Juniper SRX Firewalls in two locations, connected to said MPLS IP VPN
- Underlying Global Table or VRF "Prod" that those Firewalls connect to
- Each Firewall has 1x 10 Gig Ethernet connection, Xe-0/0/1, connected to the MPLS IP VPN
- Overlay Network
- Routing Instance (VRF/Routing Table) called "Other" present on each Juniper SRX Firewall
- We want to join together VRF "Other" on each SRX Firewall to each other, using a GRE Tunnel Gr-0/0/0.1 to extend them
- We'll spin up a Routed /30 p2p atop this GRE Tunnel, so we can Static Route to it, each side, to get traffic from SiteA to SiteB
The ultimate goal is for
Gr-0/0/0.1 on each SRX to be able to talk to each other's
192.168.99.x IP directly, over the GRE Tunnel (which gets transited atop the Underlay MPLS IP VPN, VRF "Prod").
What your Cisco mind tells you might work
This isn't your first GRE rodeo, you've played this game before, and done something similar on Cisco IOS kit, like this:
interface Tunnel99 description GRE Tunnel to SiteB Tun99 ip vrf forwarding Other ip address 192.168.99.1 255.255.255.252 ip mtu 1476 tunnel source 10.0.0.7 tunnel destination 10.1.0.98
That worked well for you, so you reckon some config conversion like this might bear some fruit:
set interfaces gr-0/0/0 unit 1 description "GRE Tunnel to SiteB Gr-0/0/0.1" set interfaces gr-0/0/0 unit 1 tunnel source 10.0.0.7 set interfaces gr-0/0/0 unit 1 tunnel destination 10.1.0.98 set interfaces gr-0/0/0 unit 1 tunnel routing-instance destination Other set interfaces gr-0/0/0 unit 1 family inet mtu 1476 set interfaces gr-0/0/0 unit 1 family inet address 192.168.99.1/30 ! set routing-instances Other interface gr-0/0/0.1
That'll do it, right?
What the Juniper SRX errors to fight back
So you try your
ping 192.168.99.2 routing-instance Other, it fails miserably; then you go down to checking the Underlay Tunnel Source can ping the Tunnel Destination:
PING 10.1.0.98: 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 10.0.0.7: icmp_seq=0 ttl=122 time=5.661 ms 64 bytes from 10.1.0.98 icmp_seq=1 ttl=122 time=6.619 ms 64 bytes from 10.1.0.98
Hmm, that's all fine, Alright, Juniper, what about a little
show log messages | last 10 then, eh?
Aug 21 23:00:03 node0.fpc1.pic0 IFP error> ../../../../../../../src/pfe/usp/control/applications/interface/ifp.c@3069:(errno=1000) tunnel session add(gr-0/0/0) failed
Huh, what's that all about?
Hunting the Interwebs for clues
Time to invoke Dr Google then, and off we find this similarly afflicted person with an SRX1400, with this key scrap of thinking material:
This error is when you need the static route if gr-0/0/0 and egress interface are in two different routing-instances. So you need to point the static route of the gr tunnel to the table that have the external interface.
It's not really sinking in, so you re-read it a few times; why does Junos care if my Gr-0/0/0.1 interface is in a different Routing Instance (VRF) to the Underlay, that's the point of the
...tunnel routing-instance destination Other command, right, to tell it to set the destination of the Tunnel Endpoint into another Routing Table, right?
In Juniper land, Destination Sources you!
It's probably best if I show you the fix first, then this might click - here is the fix to suddenly make the Tunnel spring into life:
set routing-instances Other routing-options static route 10.1.0.98/32 next-table Prod.inet.0
Note1: You'll need the other IP, for SiteA (10.0.0.7) as this inter-VRF Static Route for the other SiteB Firewall
Note2: You'll need to add that ".inet.0" to your Routing Instance name, because Junos and consistency don't mix.
So if you're like me, you're looking at that bemused, and saying to yourself: "But, but... I set the Tunnel Destination to look in a different VRF, right, otherwise what exactly is the point of that routing-instance destination command all about?".
Well, I'll tell you what I reckon it's to do, I think it's to set the source of the Tunnel (i.e. what Cisco would call the "Tunnel Source") to use the Underlay (Prod VRF) to form; not, as the fecking word in the command reads, the Tunnel Destination. Hence, as there is no command that sets the destination, it assumes the Tunnel Destination is in the same VRF as the Tunnel itself, so you have to set an inter-VRF Static Route to tell it to go into the Underlay to form the GRE Tunnel.
It's the only way I can reconcile it in my head, with you needing to add he destination route/prefix as well as that
...tunnel routing-instance destination... command.
So there you go, in Junos land, this magic badly-named combo does what the sensibly-named
tunnel source and
tunnel destination combo does in Cisco IOS:
set interfaces gr-0/0/0 unit 1 tunnel source 10.0.0.7 #Note this is in VRF Prod underlay set interfaces gr-0/0/0 unit 1 tunnel destination 10.1.0.98 #Note this is in VRF Prod underlay set interfaces gr-0/0/0 unit 1 tunnel routing-instance destination Prod #Note this sets the VRF for the Tunnel Source set routing-instances Other routing-options static route 10.1.0.98/32 next-table Prod.inet.0 #Note this inter-VRFs the Tunnel Destination
Mind you, in Juniper land opposites are clearly true, so maybe I should call this section the Introduction instead, seeing as it's at the end of the blog post.
If only Juniper sold mineral water, it'd be bottled at destination instead.
Sorry, I'll start now. Wait, do I mean stop...