[j-nsp] BGP advertise-inactive (even not the *best* BGP route)

[Jeff Wheeler]

When you refer to limitations of existing equipment, below, do you mean
FIB space limitations?  Certainly that would be an issue for folks who
wish to provide routes from certain providers to their customers.

The way I see it, though, there is no need to export the routes from
provider-a.inet.0 to the FIB.  Routes rejected via the routing-options
forwarding-table export policy may still be readvertised to a route
optimizer or looking-glass.

-- 
Jeff at Reflected Networks

On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 21:15, Pedro Roque Marques wrote:
> Use a rib-group to leak each provider routes to both inet.0 and
> provider-a.inet.0.
> 
> You can then propagate the provider-{a,b,c} routes via 2547 or not.
> 
> I've seen this used by people that have customers that insist that its
> routes be forwarded via a particular upstream. You can just keep a
> copy of the tables per upstream...
> 
> How many you can keep clearly depends on equipment... but w/ existing
> equipment you can probably do 3/4 upstreams. Also depends if you
> absolutly need every single route.... If you don't get full routing
> you can probably go into orders of magnitude higher. The main
> limitation is on what the forwarding engines can do.
> 
>   Pedro.
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp