|
0:00:13
|
In our next section here, we're gonna look at "Generic Routing Encapsulation Tunneling", or GRE tunneling.
|
|
0:00:19
|
And how we can use it to solve some interesting problems in the Layer 3 routing domain.
|
|
0:00:26
|
Now, GRE is an IP protocol.
|
|
0:00:29
|
It has its own transport number. It's IP protocol number 47.
|
|
0:00:33
|
Which means that even though if we're using it for different types of protocol encapsulations,
|
|
0:00:38
|
whether it's be IPv4 over GRE, or IPv6 over GRE.
|
|
0:00:43
|
CLNS over GRE for routing IS-IS over GRE tunnel.
|
|
0:00:48
|
Technically, the transport itself is an IP packet.
|
|
0:00:52
|
Now, there are other variations of type of tunnels.
|
|
0:00:55
|
Some that use IPv4 as transport, some that do not use IPv4 for transport.
|
|
0:01:02
|
But in the case of GRE,
|
|
0:01:04
|
it assumes that we have an IPv4 network between the endpoint that are actually doing the tunneling.
|
|
0:01:09
|
Now, the reason that this is more common to use, the GRE tunnel
|
|
0:01:15
|
is more common to use versus the other encapsulations
|
|
0:01:17
|
is that it is a multi-protocol encap.
|
|
0:01:21
|
So, we can have basically any type of payload.
|
|
0:01:23
|
It could be routed IPv4, it could be routed Ipv6. It could even be bridge traffic.
|
|
0:01:30
|
It could even be frame relay. There's a way to do frame relay switching over GRE tunnels.
|
|
0:01:36
|
But when we compare this to something like an IP in IP tunnel,
|
|
0:01:40
|
or an IPv6 IP tunnel,
|
|
0:01:43
|
those are both IPv4 as the transport,
|
|
0:01:46
|
and either IPv4 or IPv6 exclusively as the payload.
|
|
0:01:53
|
So, for an IPv6 IP tunnel, we would see that we could not run CLNS over it for IS-IS routing.
|
|
0:02:00
|
Or the same with an IP in IP tunnel, because they only support the IPv4 as the payload.
|
|
0:02:11
|
Now, the configuration of the tunneling...
|
|
0:02:14
|
is pretty straightforward. The main thing that we need to...
|
|
0:02:20
|
define is, where is the traffic coming from, and where is the traffic going to?
|
|
0:02:24
|
So, what is the source address of the tunnel? What is the destination address of the tunnel?
|
|
0:02:30
|
Once we actually create the control plane of GRE,
|
|
0:02:35
|
which is defining the tunnel interface where it's coming from and where it's going to on both sides,
|
|
0:02:40
|
then, we could apply the payload that we're tunneling inside of the packets.
|
|
0:02:45
|
So, whether this be the IPv4 address, the IPv6 address.
|
|
0:02:50
|
If we're doing bridging or frame relay switching over the GRE, that's gonna be the payload.
|
|
0:02:55
|
GRE also supports an optional keepalive.
|
|
0:03:00
|
That if we wanna check whether we actually have end-to-end transport over the link,
|
|
0:03:05
|
then, we could do a Layer 3 keepalive over the interface.
|
|
0:03:08
|
So, by default, the keepalive is off.
|
|
0:03:13
|
Now, the one problem...
|
|
0:03:15
|
that we do need to take into account before the defining the tunnel interface
|
|
0:03:19
|
is that we can perform the route recursion
|
|
0:03:22
|
to an interface that is not the tunnel itself
|
|
0:03:27
|
when we are trying to route the tunnel destination.
|
|
0:03:31
|
So, the tunnel destination from router A is the IP address on router B that is accepting the tunnel in.
|
|
0:03:41
|
In certain cases, we can end up in designs where a recursive error happens,
|
|
0:03:48
|
and a recursive failure occurs on the tunnel
|
|
0:03:51
|
if the tunnel destination recurses to the tunnel itself.
|
|
0:03:56
|
So, if we have a configuration that says, "The tunnel destination is 1.2.3.4,
|
|
0:04:00
|
then, we look in the routing table and it says, "To get to 1.2.3.4, use the tunnel."
|
|
0:04:06
|
But then, likewise, to get to the tunnel we need to use that same destination 1.2.3.4,
|
|
0:04:10
|
this would be an example of a recursive loop
|
|
0:04:14
|
where one route points at the other one,
|
|
0:04:18
|
and the other one points right back at the first one.
|
|
0:04:21
|
Now, the router will eventually detect this
|
|
0:04:24
|
when it reaches a threshold of how many recursive steps you can go through...
|
|
0:04:30
|
for the loookup.
|
|
0:04:32
|
And this is where we see the log message. It says, "The tunnel is temporarily disabled due to recursive routing."
|
|
0:04:38
|
Now, when this happens, it means that either based on a static routing configuration,
|
|
0:04:43
|
or some dynamic information,
|
|
0:04:46
|
we have accidentally learned the tunnel destination out the tunnel itself.
|
|
0:04:52
|
We'll see the common reason for this is either based on the routing metric,
|
|
0:04:57
|
or the routing administrative distance
|
|
0:04:59
|
when we are doing dynamic routing
|
|
0:05:01
|
on the tunnel interface, plus on the physical interfaces outside of the tunnel
|
|
0:05:06
|
that is supposed to be for the GRE transport.
|
|
0:05:13
|
So, let's take a look at this...
|
|
0:05:16
|
an example of this on the command line.
|
|
0:05:18
|
And you'll see that not all platforms actually support doing tunnel interfaces.
|
|
0:05:24
|
So, we'll have to see whether some of the switches actually support it or not.
|
|
0:05:29
|
But what I wanna do here...
|
|
0:05:31
|
is create a tunnel. We'll say it's gonna go between router 5 and...
|
|
0:05:40
|
switch 1.
|
|
0:05:43
|
So this is gonna be our GRE tunnel.
|
|
0:05:45
|
And I believe that switch 1 with this version does support the tunnel interfaces.
|
|
0:05:51
|
So, you may want to... You can either try it out on the command line or check the release notes
|
|
0:05:56
|
whether GRE is a supported feature on that particular switch.
|
|
0:06:00
|
For the routers, it's not gonna be an issue.
|
|
0:06:03
|
Pretty much, any platform supports it.
|
|
0:06:05
|
But just like the policy routing on the lower level platforms,
|
|
0:06:09
|
it does not support hardware acceleration.
|
|
0:06:13
|
So, if you're doing GRE on the 6500 or the 7600 or above,
|
|
0:06:18
|
depending on the policy feature card, and the other different hardware options you have,
|
|
0:06:24
|
GRE can be hardware accelerated.
|
|
0:06:27
|
So, it can use CEF switching, it can use hardware switching.
|
|
0:06:35
|
So, on switch 1,
|
|
0:06:38
|
again, we have the EIRGP being used as a transit between the neighbors.
|
|
0:06:44
|
So, if we look at the Show IP Route EIGRP,
|
|
0:06:47
|
we should have routing information about every address that is currently in our topology.
|
|
0:06:53
|
So, to establish the tunnel with router 5,
|
|
0:06:56
|
it would then assume that we have IP reachability to at least some address on router 5.
|
|
0:07:02
|
So, let's say that this is gonna be between our loopbacks.
|
|
0:07:05
|
So, I wanna know before I configure the tunnel.
|
|
0:07:08
|
Can I reach router 5's loopback...
|
|
0:07:10
|
when I am sourcing traffic from my own loopback?
|
|
0:07:14
|
Which I can.
|
|
0:07:16
|
These addresses then are gonna be used for the source and the destination addresses of the tunnel respectively.
|
|
0:07:23
|
So, router 5 is gonna source traffic from here, destined to here.
|
|
0:07:28
|
For switch 1 will be the other way around. Traffic is coming from 150.10.7.7
|
|
0:07:33
|
going to 150.10.5.5.
|
|
0:07:38
|
So, our next step is to create the tunnel interface. We'll say Interface Tunnel...
|
|
0:07:42
|
Give it a number. Interface Tunnel 0.
|
|
0:07:46
|
If we now look at the Do Show Interface Tunnel 0,
|
|
0:07:52
|
it says that the tunnel protocol and transport is GRE and IP.
|
|
0:08:01
|
This means that we're using the default mode of Generic Routing Encapsulation,
|
|
0:08:05
|
and this is the IPv4 version of GRE.
|
|
0:08:11
|
Depending what particular version we're using,
|
|
0:08:15
|
let's say on router 4 who has a more recent version, this is 12.4(24)T Advanced Enterprise Services.
|
|
0:08:23
|
If we were to go to a tunnel interface and say Tunnel Mode,
|
|
0:08:28
|
we could see these are al different types of tunnels.
|
|
0:08:32
|
The default mode is Tunnel Mode GRE.
|
|
0:08:35
|
We could also say that this is an IPv6 GRE tunnel,
|
|
0:08:42
|
which in that case, IPv6 would be the transport,
|
|
0:08:46
|
and some other protocol would be the payload.
|
|
0:08:50
|
So, down the road, 10, 20 years from now when IPv4 is the minority of implementations,
|
|
0:08:57
|
and IPv6 is used exclusively in the transit path,
|
|
0:09:01
|
we'll have the opposite model we do now,
|
|
0:09:04
|
or eventually, we'll have to tunnel IPv4 over IPv6.
|
|
0:09:11
|
So, we can see, the default tunnel mode is GRE IP. This means this is a point-to-point...
|
|
0:09:17
|
IP-based GRE tunnel.
|
|
0:09:23
|
So next on switch 1, we define what is the tunnel source.
|
|
0:09:28
|
I could either say, "My loopback, loopback 0, or I could give it the address 150.10.7.7."
|
|
0:09:34
|
Okay, it doesn't really matter, both are gonna do the same thing.
|
|
0:09:38
|
Then, I specify what is the tunnel destination? 150.10.5.5.
|
|
0:09:44
|
Okay, that's router 5's address.
|
|
0:09:47
|
Then, well need some sort of...
|
|
0:09:49
|
subnet on the tunnel. Assuming we're trying to route IPv4 packets over this.
|
|
0:09:54
|
So, we'll say IP Address.
|
|
0:09:57
|
Let's say the 10 network. 10.0.0.7
|
|
0:10:03
|
|
|
0:10:10
|
Then, on router 5, we're gonna need to do the opposite. So, let's say, Show Run Interface Tunnel 0
|
|
0:10:14
|
on switch 1.
|
|
0:10:16
|
We're gonna take this,
|
|
0:10:18
|
and just change what the source and destination is. Swap those two values.
|
|
0:10:22
|
And then, give router 5 a unique address.
|
|
0:10:26
|
So, we'll say, "The...
|
|
0:10:29
|
tunnel...
|
|
0:10:32
|
source is my loopback,
|
|
0:10:36
|
where the tunnel destination...
|
|
0:10:40
|
is switch 1's. And the IP address will be 10.0.0.5/24.
|
|
0:10:49
|
Now, notice that the line protocol of the tunnel comes up,
|
|
0:10:52
|
but by default, this is not a good indication of end-to-end connectivity.
|
|
0:10:59
|
The tunnel's line protocol is simply based on whether we have proper route recursion
|
|
0:11:05
|
to the tunnel destination.
|
|
0:11:07
|
So, as long as I look in the routing table and find the outgoing interface towards the destination,
|
|
0:11:15
|
then, the tunnel is gonna be up.
|
|
0:11:17
|
Doesn't mean that on the other side, the tunnel is actually configured yet.
|
|
0:11:21
|
So, only once we enable bi-directional keepalives
|
|
0:11:25
|
does the tunnel actually track the end-to-end reachability between the neighbors.
|
|
0:11:31
|
Now, at this point, the tunnel should be actually up, because I configure it on both sides.
|
|
0:11:35
|
If I ping 10.0.0.7,
|
|
0:11:38
|
we see that we have connectivity. If we were to trace to this destination 10.0.0.7.
|
|
0:11:45
|
It should look as if it's just one hop away,
|
|
0:11:49
|
because now, these packets are being tunneled over...
|
|
0:11:53
|
the rest of the transit network.
|
|
0:11:56
|
If we look at how we get to the loopback
|
|
0:12:01
|
of switch 1,
|
|
0:12:04
|
it says we'll either go to router 1 or router 2. Those multiple equal cost paths.
|
|
0:12:10
|
This means that the GRE packets...
|
|
0:12:13
|
are going to go...
|
|
0:12:17
|
from 5...
|
|
0:12:20
|
to router 2, from 2 to 3, from 3 to switch 1.
|
|
0:12:25
|
Or from 5 to 1,
|
|
0:12:28
|
from 1 to 3, from 3 to switch 1.
|
|
0:12:32
|
So, this means that if we were to go to router 3,
|
|
0:12:37
|
and at the link level,
|
|
0:12:40
|
so, we'll say, "On our interface...
|
|
0:12:46
|
Fast Ethernet 0/0, No IP Route Cache."
|
|
0:12:51
|
So again, this is disabling CEF.
|
|
0:12:53
|
Then, we said, Do Debug IP Packet Detail.
|
|
0:13:01
|
When I send traffic between 5 and 7 over the tunnel,
|
|
0:13:10
|
we should see that router 3 receives this,
|
|
0:13:18
|
and I need to... Actually, I need to do...
|
|
0:13:22
|
process switching on the other interfaces as well. So, let's say serial 1/3.
|
|
0:13:27
|
No IP Route Cache. And serial 1/2. No IP Route Cache.
|
|
0:13:34
|
Then, we will...
|
|
0:13:35
|
Debug IP Packet Detail.
|
|
0:13:40
|
And then do these pings again.
|
|
0:13:42
|
So, when you're disabling CEF for the purpose of the debugging,
|
|
0:13:46
|
it's gonna be on the incoming interface for the packet you are disabling.
|
|
0:13:52
|
So, in this case, the incoming interface is serial 1/3, that's where I would need to turn CEF off.
|
|
0:13:58
|
But the key point of this, when we look at the result of this debug,
|
|
0:14:02
|
it says "The packet came from the loopback of 5,
|
|
0:14:07
|
and it was going to the loopback of switch 1."
|
|
0:14:11
|
The protocol number is 47.
|
|
0:14:15
|
That's GRE.
|
|
0:14:18
|
So, it means that someone is tunneling over us.
|
|
0:14:21
|
We don't actually know what the final destination is,
|
|
0:14:24
|
because we're not ooking at the GRE header.
|
|
0:14:27
|
We're looking at just the IP header
|
|
0:14:29
|
that is between 5's loopback and switch 1's loopback.
|
|
0:14:38
|
So, pretty straightforward configuration, we just need to define
|
|
0:14:43
|
what the source of the tunnel is, what the destination of the tunnel is,
|
|
0:14:46
|
and whatever payload that we wanna put on top of it.
|
|
0:14:50
|
Now, were we run into issues is that from the control plane point of view,
|
|
0:14:56
|
which is EIGRP in this case,
|
|
0:14:59
|
we are running EIGRP on all of these physical links.
|
|
0:15:05
|
On the point-to-point link to router 4.
|
|
0:15:08
|
On the frame relay.
|
|
0:15:10
|
Then on switch 1, we have all of these Ethernet, it's enabled everywhere.
|
|
0:15:16
|
This means that switch 1's loop back is advertised to router 5 through EIGRP.
|
|
0:15:23
|
Router 5 should be installing this in the routing table as an internal EIGRP route
|
|
0:15:28
|
which has a distance of 90.
|
|
0:15:31
|
And the metric that is based on the inverse minimum bandwidth of the path plus the delay.
|
|
0:15:41
|
It's based on the normal composite metric rules of EIGRP.
|
|
0:15:45
|
Now, if we configure the tunnel, between these two neighbors to also run EIGRP
|
|
0:15:54
|
we run the risk of advertising the tunnel destination out the tunnel itself.
|
|
0:16:02
|
So, if we now go to router 5 and switch 1,
|
|
0:16:07
|
and we look at the Show IP EIGRP interfaces,
|
|
0:16:15
|
we can see that EIGRP is enabled on the tunnel.
|
|
0:16:20
|
The reason why is that when I did out the EIGRP configuration before
|
|
0:16:25
|
I said, "Just run it on every single interface."
|
|
0:16:30
|
If we look at the Show IP EIGRP neighbors,
|
|
0:16:35
|
we now have an adjacency over the tunnel.
|
|
0:16:39
|
If we look at the routing table, and look for anything that is out the tunnel,
|
|
0:16:47
|
right now, there's nothing being learned.
|
|
0:16:50
|
Okay, the only thing that shows out the tunnel is just the tunnel as a connected interface.
|
|
0:16:56
|
The reason why is if we look at the Show Interface Tunnel 0,
|
|
0:17:03
|
the bandwidth value is very, very low and the delay is very, very high.
|
|
0:17:11
|
This is a default protection mechanism that the router does to try to not use the tunnel
|
|
0:17:20
|
for dynamically learned destinations.
|
|
0:17:23
|
So it means that if you have the option to route out a physical link versus thte tunnel,
|
|
0:17:28
|
you would normally prefer the physical link as a opposed to the tunnel.
|
|
0:17:33
|
This would be true for OSPF or EIGRP because OSPF is gonna use the bandwidth for the cost.
|
|
0:17:40
|
EIGRP is gonna use the bandwidth plus the delay.
|
|
0:17:43
|
From RIP's perspective, it's just gonna see it as one hop,
|
|
0:17:47
|
so we could run into issues with that.
|
|
0:17:50
|
Now, if we go to the interface here, the tunnel,
|
|
0:17:53
|
and we'll set the bandwidth to be, let's say whatever the maximum value is.
|
|
0:18:01
|
And we could set the delay to some low value.
|
|
0:18:08
|
If we Show IP Route Include Tunnel,
|
|
0:18:13
|
then we'll clear EIGRP neighbors.
|
|
0:18:32
|
We see the message that have the recursive error.
|
|
0:18:36
|
Now, we can see this if we look at the debug IP routing.
|
|
0:18:42
|
Then I will shut the tunnel down manually
|
|
0:18:48
|
and then bring the tunnel back up.
|
|
0:18:59
|
We should see that once establish the EIGRP adjacency,
|
|
0:19:04
|
that the tunnel destination, which is 150.10.7.0/24 is learned in the tunnel
|
|
0:19:13
|
and it's preferred based on the routing metrics.
|
|
0:19:20
|
If we Show IP EIGRP neighbors,
|
|
0:19:29
|
we should see, let's see, did switch 1 disabled the tunnel as well?
|
|
0:19:37
|
No, there's the new adjacency.
|
|
0:19:52
|
So, it's kinda hard to see in this output because there's so many routes that are being added
|
|
0:19:56
|
and leaving quickly.
|
|
0:19:58
|
But if we look at what happened here, it says that
|
|
0:20:07
|
we learned, let's see, where is it?
|
|
0:20:21
|
This very top one here.
|
|
0:20:22
|
It says that previously, I had two equal cost paths to reach 155.
|
|
0:20:29
|
Not 155, it'd be 150.
|
|
0:20:32
|
But the output should look the same here.
|
|
0:20:41
|
Let's see, 155...150, there it is.
|
|
0:20:44
|
Okay, so we had two equal cost paths to 150.10.7.
|
|
0:20:51
|
and let me undebug.
|
|
0:20:56
|
Or let's do this. Let's say, "No Logging Console."
|
|
0:21:01
|
So we'll see if we look at the logs, this is gonna happen over and over again.
|
|
0:21:06
|
That the tunnels gonna try to re-enable itself and the realize that it cannot.
|
|
0:21:12
|
And it's gonna go down.
|
|
0:21:19
|
So, it says, we have two paths that previously were from router 2 and router 1.
|
|
0:21:25
|
There metrics were somewhere in the order of 2.8 million.
|
|
0:21:31
|
I then learned the same prefix via the tunnel interface
|
|
0:21:36
|
with the lower metric. The metric now is 128,000.
|
|
0:21:39
|
So, it means I have to delete the routes out of the table,
|
|
0:21:42
|
and then enter the new one back in.
|
|
0:21:46
|
Once I do this, if we were to look at the logic of what router 5's table says,
|
|
0:21:53
|
it says, "To get to...
|
|
0:22:00
|
150.7.10.10, we need to go to 10.0.0.7"
|
|
0:22:12
|
Then likewise, it says, "To get to...
|
|
0:22:15
|
10.0.0.7, we need to go to 150.7.10.10"
|
|
0:22:26
|
So, one route points at the second one, the second one points right back.
|
|
0:22:31
|
If we were to look at the Debug IP Packet,
|
|
0:22:34
|
then we actually sent traffic out the tunnel while it was temporarily enabled.
|
|
0:22:39
|
We would see that the recursive look up fails
|
|
0:22:42
|
and the router tries to look up the route over and over and over.
|
|
0:22:47
|
But from the debug, we can see router 5 tries to prevent that.
|
|
0:22:52
|
It says that recursive routing occur, so now we're going to disable the tunnel.
|
|
0:23:00
|
Which means that the tunnel is to be removed from the routing table,
|
|
0:23:03
|
and then all of the networks learned via that interface have to be withdrawn.
|
|
0:23:11
|
Now, the solution to this problem is really straightforward,
|
|
0:23:15
|
as long as you know that the design problem is there to begin with,
|
|
0:23:18
|
it's very eaasy to solve.
|
|
0:23:20
|
The issue is, that there is never a valid circumstance
|
|
0:23:26
|
where we should be advertising the tunnel destination out the tunnel itself.
|
|
0:23:32
|
So, from router 5's perspective,
|
|
0:23:33
|
there's nothing wrong with it having the routes learned over the tunnel
|
|
0:23:40
|
from switch 1.
|
|
0:23:43
|
The problem is switch 1 should never advertise the loopback.
|
|
0:23:48
|
It's okay for the loopback to go that way, out the physical links.
|
|
0:23:52
|
But it should never go out the tunnel.
|
|
0:23:54
|
The same with router 5, the tunnel source should never be advertised out the tunnel.
|
|
0:24:01
|
With RIP and EIGRP, we can simply stop this by doing a distribute list.
|
|
0:24:07
|
So, on router 5, we would say,
|
|
0:24:11
|
we're going to create a prefix list, IP prefix list EIGRP filter
|
|
0:24:20
|
that denies our local prefix 150.10.5.0/24 and then permits everything else.
|
|
0:24:33
|
0.0.0.0/0 le 32.
|
|
0:24:38
|
So, that's everything from the prefix-list.
|
|
0:24:41
|
Then under the EIGRP process, router EIGRP 1
|
|
0:24:46
|
distribute-list, prefix-list, EIGRP filter should go out to tunnel 0.
|
|
0:24:57
|
Then on switch 1, we would do the same thing
|
|
0:25:00
|
or we could do this inbound on router 5.
|
|
0:25:04
|
So, you could do both filters on the same device or you could do one on each.
|
|
0:25:11
|
So, on switch 1, we'll say, IP prefix-list EIGRP filter
|
|
0:25:20
|
deny my loopback, 150.10.7.0/24, permit everything else.
|
|
0:25:27
|
So, the key here is the route, not the actual address.
|
|
0:25:32
|
So, the route is the /24.
|
|
0:25:37
|
Then under EIGRP, distribute-list, prefix-list,
|
|
0:25:43
|
name as EIGRP filter, that's gonna go out tunnel 0.
|
|
0:25:53
|
So now, from router 5's perspective, since the tunnel is the preferred path,
|
|
0:25:59
|
but switch 1 is filtering its loopback, when we look in the routing table,
|
|
0:26:05
|
any destination we want can be routed out the tunnel
|
|
0:26:10
|
with the exception of this.
|
|
0:26:14
|
As long as this destination's still points at a non-tunnel 0 interface,
|
|
0:26:18
|
that's all that we really care about.
|
|
0:26:22
|
If we say "Show IP Route include tunnel..."
|
|
0:26:27
|
Okay, I must have the tunnel shut down now.
|
|
0:26:35
|
So, let's say "shut down and then no shut down."
|
|
0:27:05
|
So the tunnel interface is up, we see now, we have the adjacency
|
|
0:27:14
|
from router 5 to switch 1. If we Show IP route and look for the tunnel,
|
|
0:27:22
|
we could see now, there's tons of destinations learned out there, which is fine
|
|
0:27:26
|
as long as when I do a trace to 150.10.7.7, this needs to route not out the tunnel.
|
|
0:27:35
|
For anything else, if I trace to 1's loopback,
|
|
0:27:42
|
that's fine, that can go out the tunnel.
|
|
0:27:45
|
Because this doesn't cause a recursive error, as long as I can actually build the Layer 3 packet.
|
|
0:27:52
|
So, when the recursion error is there, the router doesn't know how to build the Layer 3 packet,
|
|
0:27:56
|
because it doesn't know what physical interface the packet is eventually gonna route out.
|
|
0:28:09
|
Now, there is a good write-up on this on Cisco's website.
|
|
0:28:13
|
If you search for tunnel recursive routing or recursive error,
|
|
0:28:22
|
it says, "what is this message mean?"
|
|
0:28:31
|
It says, " It's a misconfigure that causes the router to try to route the tunnel destination address
|
|
0:28:35
|
using the tunnel interface itself which is recursive routing."
|
|
0:28:38
|
So, the router fixes this automatically just by disabling the interface.
|