❦ 17 février 2016 21:07 GMT, Alexander Arseniev <arsen...@btinternet.com> :
>> If the condition system would allow me to match a next-hop or an >> interface in addition to a route, I could do: >> >> 3. Reject any route with upstream as next-hop if there is a default >> route to upstream. >> >> 4. Reject any route with peer as next-hop if there is a default route >> to peer. >> >> 5. Accept everything else. > > True, one cannot match on "next-hop" in "condition", only on exact > prefix+table name. > But this can be done using "route isolation" approach. > So, the overall approach is: > 1/ create a separate table and leak a 0/0 route there matching on 0/0 > exact + next-hop ("isolate the interested route"). Use > "instance-import" + policy. Thanks for the suggestion. I tried to do that but was unable to create a separate table and do the leak. policy-options { rib XXXX.0 { ... } } In this case XXXX.0 is not recognized as a table in condition. But I only tried with XXXX.0. From example, maybe I should have tried XXXX.0.inet.0? So, I tried to create a routing instance for that purpose but I did try to use a generated route and I wasn't able to have it goes up. I can try to use import instead. So, is a separate table defined with policy-options rib or with a routing-instance? > Disclaimer - I haven't tested this myself. I'll try that. -- Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits. -- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar" _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp