* Pekka Savola > This is a feature. Why should BGP next-hop resolution not be able to > use BGP routes? There could be more specifics that give the right > information.
Because I don't want a route from AS3307 to end up routing packets to anything but AS3307, not to AS11552 as happened in my test case. Fortunatly I buy global transit from both of those, so the packets would reach its end destination anyway, but if AS11552 had only provided me with, say, "European transit" I might not have been so lucky. As I understand it the whole point of indirect next-hop resolution is for a BGP router to determine which other BGP router in the same AS has the next-hop of the route directly connected, so that the packet can be sent there and the route be used as advertised. At least that's the most common scenario, and the only one the documentation of next-hop resolving discusses. > You can adjust the route resolution policy with 'routing-options > resolution rib inetX-X import FOO'. That's what we do to exclude e.g. > our default discard route from affecting nexthop feasibility algorithm. Great, thank you! That was what I was looking for. The following seems to have done the trick: policy-options { policy-statement accept-igp-only { term 1 { from protocol [ ospf ospf3 ]; then accept; } then reject; } } routing-options { resolution { rib inet.0 { import accept-igp-only; } } } Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp