On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 05:45:25PM +0200, Mihai Gabriel wrote:
> Is Juniper's implementation of next-hop self on a RR a violation of
> RFC1966?
>
> " In some implementations, modification of the BGP path attribute,
> NEXT_HOP is possible. For example, there could be a need for a RR to
> modify NEXT_HOP for EBGP learned routes sent to its internal peers.
> However, it must not be possible for an RR to set on reflected IBGP
> routes as this breaks the basic principle of Route Reflection and
> will result in potential black holeing of traffic."
Technically, it's in violation, yes, but there are some use-cases where
even IBGP NEXT_HOP rewriting is required/desired. As such, Juniper's
way is more flexible.
You can get RFC-like behaviour (only rewrite on EBGP-received routes)
like this:
dr@cr1.cgn2> show configuration policy-options policy-statement next-hop-self
from route-type external;
then {
next-hop self;
}
"from route-type external" matches EBGP-received routes when used in BGP
context. So, this way you can use this next-hop-self policy on RR egress
to your IBGP neighbors without having to match on external peer neighbor
IPs or similar workarounds.
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
