I would still consider as-override, or at least I would figure out the reason why it is not a good solution.
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 at 15:40, niklas rehnberg via juniper-nsp <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote: > > Hi, > Thanks for the quick reply, I hope following very simple picture may help > > Clients Clients > > | | > | EVPN/VXLAN | > | Overlay AS 6555 | > spine1 --- type 5--- spine2 > vrf WAN AS X | | vrf WAN AS X > eBGP | | eBGP > | | > PE AS Y PE AS Y > | | > > ----Core Network--- > > route example when loop occur > show route hidden table bgp.evpn extensive > > bgp.evpn.0: 156 destinations, 156 routes (153 active, 0 holddown, 3 hidden) > 5:10.254.0.2:100::0::5.0.0.0::16/248 (1 entry, 0 announced) > BGP /-101 > Route Distinguisher: 10.254.0.2:100 > Next hop type: Indirect, Next hop index: 0 > Address: 0x55a1fd2d2cdc > Next-hop reference count: 108, key opaque handle: (nil), > non-key opaque handle: (nil) > Source: 10.254.0.2 > Protocol next hop: 10.254.0.2 > Indirect next hop: 0x2 no-forward INH Session ID: 0 > State: <Hidden Int Ext Changed> > Peer AS: 65555 > Age: 1:14 Metric2: 0 > Validation State: unverified > Task: BGP_65555_65555.10.254.0.2 > AS path: 65263 xxx I (Looped: 65263) > Communities: target:10:100 encapsulation:vxlan(0x8) > router-mac:34:11:8e:16:52:b2 > Import > Route Label: 99100 > Overlay gateway address: 0.0.0.0 > ESI 00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00 > Localpref: 100 > Router ID: 10.254.0.2 > Hidden reason: AS path loop > Secondary Tables: WAN.evpn.0 > Thread: junos-main > Indirect next hops: 1 > Protocol next hop: 10.254.0.2 > Indirect next hop: 0x2 no-forward INH Session ID: 0 > Indirect path forwarding next hops: 2 > Next hop type: Router > Next hop: 10.0.0.1 via et-0/0/46.1000 > Session Id: 0 > Next hop: 10.0.0.11 via et-0/0/45.1000 > Session Id: 0 > 10.254.0.2/32 Originating RIB: inet.0 > Node path count: 1 > Forwarding nexthops: 2 > Next hop type: Router > Next hop: 10.0.0.1 via > et-0/0/46.1000 > Session Id: 0 > Next hop: 10.0.0.11 via > et-0/0/45.1000 > Session Id: 0 > > > // Niklas > > > > > Den tis 15 nov. 2022 kl 13:58 skrev Saku Ytti <s...@ytti.fi>: > > > Hey Niklas, > > > > My apologies, I do not understand your topology or what you are trying > > to do, and would need a lot more context. > > > > In my ignorance I would still ask, have you considered 'as-override' - > > > > https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/bgp/topics/ref/statement/as-override-edit-protocols-bgp.html > > this is somewhat common in another use-case, which may or may not be > > near to yours. Say you want to connect arbitrarily many CE routers to > > MPLS VPN cloud with BGP, but you don't want to get unique ASNs to > > them, you'd use a single ASN on every CE and use 'as-override' on the > > core side. > > > > Another point I'd like to make, not all implementations even verify AS > > loops in iBGP, for example Cisco does not, while Juniper does. This > > implementation detail creates bias on what people consider 'clean' and > > 'dirty' solution, as in Cisco network it's enough to allow loop at the > > edge interfaces it feels more 'clean' while in Juniper network you'd > > have to allow them in all iBGP sessions too, which suddenly makes the > > solution appear somehow more 'dirty'. > > > > > > On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 at 12:48, niklas rehnberg via juniper-nsp > > <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > I have the following setup and need to know the best practices to solve > > > EVPN type 5 issues. > > > > > > Setup: > > > Two ACX7100 as collapse spine with EVPN/VXLAN > > > Using type 5 routes between the spines so iBGP can be avoided in > > > routing-instance. > > > Both spines has same bgp as number in the routing-instance WAN > > > See below for a part of configuration > > > > > > Problem: > > > Incoming routes from WAN router into spine1 will be advertised to spine2 > > as > > > type 5 routes > > > spine2 will not accept them due to AS number exit in the as-path already. > > > > > > Solution: > > > I can easily fix it with "loop 2" config in the routing-options part, but > > > is this the right way? > > > Does there exist any command to change the EVPN Type 5 behavior from eBGP > > > to iBGP? > > > Different AS number in routing-instance? > > > What are the best practices? > > > > > > Config part: > > > show routing-instances WAN protocols evpn > > > ip-prefix-routes { > > > advertise direct-nexthop; > > > encapsulation vxlan; > > > reject-asymmetric-vni; > > > vni 99100; > > > export EXPORT-T5-WAN; > > > } > > > policy-statement EXPORT-T5-WAN { > > > term 1 { > > > from protocol direct; > > > then accept; > > > } > > > term 2 { > > > from protocol bgp; > > > then accept; > > > } > > > } > > > _______________________________________________ > > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > > > > > > -- > > ++ytti > > > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
