On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Tore Anderson wrote:
* david....@orange-ftgroup.com
The protocol next-hop seems to be resolvable : but it is not directly
known in our IGP. So you have a recursive lookup til you find a
forwarding next-hop.
Yes, exactly. What surprises me, however, is that EGP routes is
considered at all when resolving indirect next-hops of iBGP routes. I
have problems coming up with a scenario where that behaviour would be
desireable, and the JUNOS documentation I quoted is also quite clear on
the fact that it is intra-AS OSPF, IS-IS, RIP, or static routes that are
supposed be used for next-hop resolving.
The behaviour I expect (and want) is for routes that come with a
next-hop that is not resolvable through my IGP should be ignored
outright and _not_ be placed in the PFE, even though the next-hop is
resolvable using a BGP route.
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.
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.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
