[j-nsp] Unusable Path?

[Martin, Christian]

Is the bgp next-hop known via a "next-hop" that is not directly connected?
In earlier versions of JUNOS, you could not recurse more than once.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:ras@e-gerbil.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 6:14 PM
> To: German Martinez
> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Unusable Path?
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:56:35PM -0400, German Martinez wrote:
> > Richard,
> > According with what I read I'd say the the next-hop is not 
> reachable 
> > (pingable).
> 
> Well, I once had a slew of routes with this inactive reason on an 
> otherwise perfectly normal transit feed from a Crisco where 
> the next-hop was fine (both normally and with next-hop 
> peer-address), but I didn't get around to asking about this 
> before it went away, so lets stick with an 
> invalid nexthop as the reason for the moment.
> 
> I'm puzzled why I cannot manually set the next-hop on BGP 
> routes being imported with a policy-statement. When something 
> simple is applied, like "then next-hop x.x.x.x" where x.x.x.x 
> is the perfectly reachable directly connected next-hop, the 
> route becomes hidden with "Unusable Path" and "Unusable nexthop".
> 
>                 Next hop type: Unusable
>                 State: <Hidden Ext>
>                 Inactive reason: Unusable path
> 
> This is something you can do w/Cisco obviously, and it has 
> been reported to me that it can be done on Junos 5.0, but I 
> have been unable to do it with JunOS 5.2-5.4. And no it's not 
> to point next-hop at peers, I have a legitimate reason. :)
> 
> -- 
> Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>       
> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
> PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177  (67 29 D7 
> BC E8 18 3E DA  B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6) 
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net 
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/junipe> r-nsp
>