Description

Customer has two ACX7024 with VRRP on interface et-0/0/4 that tracks the default route to change the priority-cost based on its presence in the routing table.

The default route is learnt via BGP and installed in the routing table. When the default route is removed from the routing table (shutting down the et-0/0/4 interface) the route is successfully removed from the routing table but VRRP tracking still sees the '0.0.0.0/0' route as up and doesn't change the VRRP priority.


This method works on other similar setups with Junos, but not with Junos-EVO. The installation and VRRP is not new but the tracking has been tested not working.

Symptoms

labroot@jtac-acx7024-r2010> show vrrp track   

 

Track route     State    Cost  Interface Group  Cfg  Run  VR State

0.0.0.0/0      up      100  et-0/0/12.0   2 150  150  master  

91.193.116.164/32  up      100  et-0/0/12.0   1 150  150  master  

 

labroot@jtac-acx7024-r2010> show route table inet.0   

 

inet.0: 11 destinations, 11 routes (11 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)

+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both

 

0.0.0.0/0     *[BGP/170] 00:19:14, MED 100, localpref 100

           AS path: 201933 I, validation-state: unverified

          > to 91.193.116.164 via et-0/0/11.1513

 

 

[edit]

labroot@jtac-acx7024-r2010# set interfaces et-0/0/11 disable 

 

[edit]

labroot@jtac-acx7024-r2010# commit and-quit 

commit complete

Exiting configuration mode

 

labroot@jtac-acx7024-r2010> show vrrp track         

 

Track route     State    Cost  Interface Group  Cfg  Run  VR State

0.0.0.0/0      up      100  et-0/0/12.0   2 150  150  master  

91.193.116.164/32  down     100  et-0/0/12.0   1 150  50  master  

 

 

labroot@jtac-acx7024-r2010> show route table inet.0   

 

inet.0: 9 destinations, 9 routes (9 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)

+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both

 

91.193.116.165/32 *[Local/0] 00:00:12

            Reject

91.193.117.96/28  *[Direct/0] 00:43:54

          > via et-0/0/12.0

91.193.117.97/32  *[Local/0] 00:43:42

            Local via et-0/0/12.0

91.193.117.98/32  *[Local/0] 00:43:54

            Local via et-0/0/12.0

91.193.117.112/28 *[Direct/0] 00:43:54

          > via et-0/0/12.0

91.193.117.113/32 *[Local/0] 00:43:42

            Local via et-0/0/12.0

91.193.117.114/32 *[Local/0] 00:43:54

            Local via et-0/0/12.0

169.254.101.0/30  *[Direct/0] 00:43:54

          > via et-0/0/10.0

169.254.101.1/32  *[Local/0] 00:43:54

            Local via et-0/0/10.0

Solution

This issue was fixed via PR1681685


As part of getting add for route 0.0.0.0/0, App Controller will check isInteresting before invoke OnAdd function of registered handler.

Since vrrp is returning false if route len is 0, due to that vrrp didnt handle 0.0.0.0/0 correctly.


Resolved-In:

evo:22.1R3-EVO evo:22.2R1-S1-EVO evo:22.2R2-EVO evo:22.3R2-EVO evo:22.4R1-EVO evo:25.4R1-EVO

Modification History

2025-07-07 : Article Created