Reply to Harry and Doug both since you mostly asked the same question.
On Sep 27, 2012, at 12:13 PM, Harry Reynolds wrote:
> It might help if you posted your BGP export policy. IIRC, there is a
> no-readvertise flag available for a static but not aware of any inherent
> blocking of the advertisement of an fxpo address via BGP, more so if your
> export permits it.
To me it is a bug to advertise a route which you won't route packets for.
Obviously it's your fault if you advertise a route and have a packet filter
blocking packets -- the routing engine isn't responsible for this. But fxp0 is
supposedly on its own routing fabric. I can't send packets in ae0 destined for
something on the fxp0 network.
If a route visible in one routing engine was advertised out by another routing
engine (with no route-sharing between them) this would be a bug, yes? Why isn't
fxp0 treated the same way?
Finally, we have the same export policy on every node in our network. Having to
break that out, and hand-tune every export policy to explicitly deny the fxp0
interface's routes is a lot of work with zero gain. If for some reason Juniper
feels that it's important to someone somewhere to announce a route you won't
accept packets for, why isn't there any easy method to disable this
nonsensical, nonfunctional, nobody in their right mind would or could use it
(non)functionality?
Obviously, a feature request for "protocol bgp { interface fxp0 { ignore; }}"
would do the trick, but I struggle to believe that you've never seen this
problem before, and you don't have a better way to prevent this behavior.
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
