Also, you can do "then next-hop discard" in your policy and you won't need the static route.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Richard A Steenbergen <r...@e-gerbil.net>wrote: > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:14:39AM -0500, Eric Krichbaum wrote: > > Thanks everyone. The policy straight to discard works for me, just > annoyed > > me. I really didn't want to apply a knob (similar to the disable > connected > > check on cisco) to do it. Trying to make these policies the same has > proven > > an interesting exercise and at least now I am aware of the knobs to make > it > > do the other. > > It's technically a violation of the BGP spec to let the user arbitrarily > rewrite the next-hop of a eBGP non-multihop route to something other > than the directly connected interface, and the "correct" action when you > do it is to reject the route for having an invalid next-hop. > > Of course, over here in reality land that's complete nonsense. There are > perfectly legitimate reasons to do so, like the example you cited, but > it took a LONG time to get this past the guys who defend the theory > without regard to practice. You used to have to configure ebgp multihop > everywhere to get it to relax those rules, which carries its own > downsides like lack of "fast external failover" behavior. The commands > like "disable-connected-check" and "accept-remote-nexthop" were the > compromises between following the spec and satisfying the customer. ;) > > -- > Richard A Steenbergen <r...@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras > GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp