[j-nsp] policy based routing, rib-groups and issues...
Eric Van Tol
eric at atlantech.net
Tue Oct 26 08:14:38 EDT 2004
I believe that if you are using VLANs, you need to use the
'interface-group' commands. Here is an example of what we have running:
probes {
term 0-log_all {
then {
count all_packets;
next term;
}
}
term as7018 {
from {
interface-group 1;
}
then {
routing-instance as7018;
}
}
term implicit-allow {
then accept;
}
interface {
fe-0/0/2 {
unit 1 {
family inet {
filter {
input probes;
group 1;
}
}
}
}
}
-----Original Message-----
From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Bill Petrisko
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 4:15 AM
To: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] policy based routing, rib-groups and issues...
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 09:56:51AM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 12:45:28AM -0700, Bill Petrisko wrote:
> > routing-instances {
> > peerX {
> > instance-type forwarding;
> > routing-options {
> > static {
> > route 0.0.0.0/0 next-table inet.0;
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
>
> I haven't played with this yet, but this looks fishy. What do you
> want to achieve with "next-table inet.0"?
>
> Try replacing "next-table inet.0" with "next-hop 192.168.91.26" to
> send traffic down the private peering.
Does not make any difference.
The next-table inet.0 puts the following into the peerX.inet.0
table:
0.0.0.0/0 *[Static/5] 00:03:39
to table inet.0
Which, I believed might direct the traffic over to inet.0
for any routes that were not specifically in peerX.inet.0
bill
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
More information about the juniper-nsp
mailing list