Hello,
I’m trying to work through solving why a BGP prefix 126.126.126.0/24 announced
to pe2 in vrf foo isn’t announced to EBGP neighbour 10.108.35.254 on pe1 that
is also in vrf foo.
jlixfeld@pe1# run show route protocol bgp table foo.inet.0 126.126.126.0/24
foo.inet.0: 41 destinations, 51 routes (35 active, 0 holddown, 9 hidden)
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both
126.126.126.0/24 *[BGP/170] 03:18:28, MED 0, localpref 990, from 10.15.48.253
AS path: 12345 I, validation-state: unverified
> to 10.15.51.248 via xe-0/1/5.0, Push 91
to 10.15.49.83 via xe-0/1/0.0, Push 91, Push 18(top)
[BGP/170] 03:18:28, MED 0, localpref 990, from 10.15.48.254
AS path: 12345 I, validation-state: unverified
> to 10.15.51.248 via xe-0/1/5.0, Push 91
to 10.15.49.83 via xe-0/1/0.0, Push 91, Push 18(top)
[edit]
jlixfeld@pe1#
126.126.126.0/24 is received from as12345 on pe2. pe2 announces the prefix to
RRs 10.15.48.253 and 10.15.48.254, and the RRs announce the prefix to pe1.
From here, I’m trying to announce it to EBGP neighbour 10.108.35.254, which I
can’t seem to make work:
jlixfeld@pe1# run show route advertising-protocol bgp 10.108.35.254
foo.inet.0: 41 destinations, 51 routes (35 active, 0 holddown, 9 hidden)
Prefix Nexthop MED Lclpref AS path
* 10.137.128.0/21 Self I
* 10.137.136.0/21 Self I
* 10.137.144.0/21 Self I
* 10.137.152.0/21 Self I
* 10.207.192.0/19 Self I
* 10.15.48.0/22 Self I
* 10.15.52.0/22 Self I
* 10.15.56.0/22 Self I
* 10.15.60.0/22 Self I
* 10.98.192.0/20 Self I
* 10.9.192.0/19 Self I
* 10.45.192.0/20 Self I
* 10.192.44.0/22 Self I
* 10.59.160.0/20 Self I
* 10.249.160.0/22 Self I
* 10.68.120.0/21 Self I
* 10.167.152.0/21 Self I
* 10.175.212.0/22 Self I
* 10.223.160.0/19 Self I
* 10.253.136.0/21 Self I
[edit]
jlixfeld@pe1#
(FWIW, the prefixes that are being announced are anchored on pe1 as static
routes)
My understanding is that since this is a BGP prefix, it’s default export policy
is to advertise all active BGP routes to all BGP speakers. But, to try and
work through whether it was an export policy issue anyway, I deactivated the
export policy on the session to 10.108.35.254, which was ineffective.
Maybe there are additional default behaviours that are different than what I’m
more familiar with in IOS/XR?
Maybe it is actually a policy issue, and I’m just not aware of what’s necessary
for the prefix get announced. I was hoping that there was an equivalent to
show route receive-protocol bgp <neighbor> hidden table <..> detail that would
show why a prefix may not be getting announced to an EBGP neighbor. IE: this
command would show the reasons why a received route is hidden, ie: "Hidden
reason: rejected by import policy”.
Would someone be able to point me in the direction of where I might need to
look to clear up what I’m missing?
Thanks!
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
