On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 08:28:46PM -0400, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> > I don't know when Juniper broke this
>
> Hey, Jo, I remember Junos working like this since forever. I'm 100%
> sure it has worked like this since way before MX80 existed.
I dunno
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> I don't know when Juniper broke this
Hey, Jo, I remember Junos working like this since forever. I'm 100%
sure it has worked like this since way before MX80 existed.
--
Jeff S Wheeler
Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts
___
On Sep 27, 2012, at 1:21 PM, Kevin Wormington wrote:
> I haven't tested this but I think:
>
> term term1 {
>from {
>protocol [ direct static ];
>interface fxp0.0;
>}
>then reject;
> }
Nice, thanks.
> In our policies we explicitly allow prefixes we want in BGP and deny
without
> having to modify (thanks Harry for confirming):
>
> term block-fxp {
> from interface fxp0.0;
> then reject;
> }
>
> From: Jo Rhett
> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:06:30 -0700
> To: Harry Reynolds , dhanks
> Cc: "juniper-nsp@puck.nether.ne
I haven't tested this but I think:
term term1 {
from {
protocol [ direct static ];
interface fxp0.0;
}
then reject;
}
in your export policy would be a "generic" way to prevent any routes
from the fxp interface from being injected into BGP.
In our policies we explic
Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:06:30 -0700
To: Harry Reynolds mailto:ha...@juniper.net>>, dhanks
mailto:dha...@juniper.net>>
Cc: "juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>"
mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] mx-class units now a
...@netconsonance.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 1:07 PM
To: Harry Reynolds; Doug Hanks
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] mx-class units now advertisement management interface
networks in BGP
Reply to Harry and Doug both since you mostly asked the same question.
On Sep 27
Reply to Harry and Doug both since you mostly asked the same question.
On Sep 27, 2012, at 12:13 PM, Harry Reynolds wrote:
> It might help if you posted your BGP export policy. IIRC, there is a
> no-readvertise flag available for a static but not aware of any inherent
> blocking of the advertise
So I guess the million dollar question is what does your BGP export policy
look like?
Reply-all with:
- show protocols bgp
- show policy-options policy-statement
On 9/27/12 10:49 AM, "Jo Rhett" wrote:
>I don't know when Juniper broke this, but I was chasing down a different
>problem earlier
ber 27, 2012 10:50 AM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] mx-class units now advertisement management interface networks
in BGP
I don't know when Juniper broke this, but I was chasing down a different
problem earlier this week and discovered that our Juniper MX80s are adverti
I don't know when Juniper broke this, but I was chasing down a different
problem earlier this week and discovered that our Juniper MX80s are advertising
the fxp0 interface's network in BGP announcements. My testing seems to indicate
that it still won't accept packets on other interfaces for this
11 matches
Mail list logo
