RE: policy

From: Mark M. Forest (milo279@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Nov 12 2001 - 01:31:02 EST

Next message: Mark M. Forest: "[j-nsp] RFC 1965 or 3065"
Previous message: Paul Goyette: "RE: policy"
In reply to: Paul Goyette: "RE: policy"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Paul, thanks for applying the leverage to pull my head out...

here is the policy for those who care

policy-statement direct {
    from {
        protocol direct;
        route-filter 1.1.1.1/32 exact reject;
        route-filter 0.0.0.0/0 orlonger accept;
    }
    then accept;
}

policy-statement direct {
    from {
        protocol direct;
        route-filter 1.1.1.1/32 exact reject;
        route-filter 0.0.0.0/0 orlonger;
    }
    then accept;
}

Of course variaton of this can be created to eliminate other interfaces if
necessary.

milo

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Goyette [mailto:pgoyette@juniper.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 11:57 PM
To: Mark M. Forest; Juniper-Nsp
Subject: RE: policy

Mark,

Try

        policy-statement {
                from {
                        protocol direct;
                        route-filter 1.1.1.1/32 reject;
                        route-filter 0/0;
                }
                then accept;
        }

The "then accept" will only be applied to routes which
match all of the conditions in the "from" clause, and
which did not have an explicit "immediate action".

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark M. Forest [mailto:milo279@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 8:21 PM
To: Juniper-Nsp
Subject: policy

Folks...here is another strange one...
I want to redistribute direct interfaces into BGP.
I use the following policy:

policy-statement direct {
from protocol direct;
then accept;
}

This works fine, except I am sending loopback addresses with this. My
loopback address is 1.1.1.1/32 and I want to filter it and send the
rest...so I modified it to look like this:

policy-statement direct {
    from {
        protocol direct;
        route-filter 1.1.1.1/32 exact reject;
    }
    then accept;
}

When I do this, nothing comes through. So I do the inverse:

policy-statement direct {
    from {
        protocol direct;
        route-filter 1.1.1.1/32 exact accept;
    }
    then reject;
}
and I end up sending 1.1.1.1/32 and rejecting all the rest. To me it seems
that the route-filter exact accept then reject should have worked.

TIA for you replys...you all have been great!!!

Milo

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Next message: Mark M. Forest: "[j-nsp] RFC 1965 or 3065"
Previous message: Paul Goyette: "RE: policy"
In reply to: Paul Goyette: "RE: policy"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 05 2002 - 10:42:37 EDT