This is exactly what I'm looking for, thanks. Although I suspect I need another
one which says static routes with a next hop on fxp0.0 should also be ignored?
I really wish I hadn't wasted 2 days of nonsense with your main tech support
line who couldn't understand the considerations at all. Is there some way to
get a ticket directed to a group of people who grasp BGP routing?
On Sep 27, 2012, at 1:30 PM, Doug Hanks wrote:
> If you want to advertise direct interfaces, but exclude fxp0, you could do
> something like this that you could cut and paste across N routers without
> having to modify (thanks Harry for confirming):
>
> term block-fxp {
> from interface fxp0.0;
> then reject;
> }
>
> From: Jo Rhett <jrh...@netconsonance.com>
> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:06:30 -0700
> To: Harry Reynolds <ha...@juniper.net>, dhanks <dha...@juniper.net>
> Cc: "juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net" <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] mx-class units now advertisement management interface
> networks in BGP
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
--
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
