Tag your discard and use the tag to set a community. Then the community can be 
used to take the desired action.

Will O'Brien

> On Feb 8, 2014, at 1:17 PM, "Phil Mayers" <p.may...@imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> We're wanting to deploy RTBH, and I'm running into issues because when the 
> route is injected into an L3VPN, the next hop is set to the advertising PE, 
> not the RTBH "discard" next-hop.
> 
> I figure I can change this with a route-map on the other PEs facing the RR, 
> but that seems clumsy, so I tried to set it on the RRs instead using a policy 
> like so:
> 
> [edit routing-options]
> +   rib inet.0 {
> +       static {
> +           route 192.0.2.1/32 {
> +               discard;
> +               no-readvertise;
> +           }
> +       }
> +   }
> [edit protocols bgp group RR-client]
> +    export BGP-rr-out;
> [edit policy-options]
> +   policy-statement BGP-rr-out {
> +       term t1 {
> +           from community RTBH;
> +           then {
> +               next-hop 192.0.2.1;
> +               accept;
> +           }
> +       }
> +       term t2 {
> +           then accept;
> +       }
> +   }
> [edit policy-options]
> +   community RTBH members 64580:666;
> 
> ...however the routes are not being advertised to the RR clients, reporting:
> 
> * 192.168.0.0:1:x.x.x.x/32 (2 entries, 1 announced)
> BGP group RR-client type Internal
>     Route Distinguisher: 192.168.0.0:1
>     BGP label allocation failure: protocols mpls not enabled on interface
>     Nexthop: Not advertised
>     Flags: Nexthop Change
>     MED: 0
>     Localpref: 100
>     ...
> 
> I'm assuming that what's happening here is the JunOS RR is trying to allocate 
> a label to put into the inet-vpn update, but can't. Is there any way I can 
> force this to happen? The actual label doesn't matter I guess, since the RTBH 
> next-hop will be routed to null0/discard on all the RR clients.
> 
> Note that the RR doesn't have routing-instance statements for the L3VPN; it's 
> just reflecting inet-vpn. Presumably if I did define the routing-instances, 
> and if I put the discard route in each instance, it would work but that again 
> seems clumsy. Maybe I'm just being too choosy ;o)
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to