[j-nsp] L3VPN routes seem unresolvable

[Jeff S Wheeler]

On Sun, 2005-05-01 at 16:57 -0700, Pedro Roque Marques wrote:
> It means that the software has decided that it doesn't need to create
> forwarding resources for that route. 
Under what circumstances is a route active and installed in the PFE with
an invalid next-hop?

> rpd believes none is needed. Do you happen to have a forwarding-table
> export policy ?
I have a lengthy forwarding-table export policy.  The number of routes
we need to carry are substantially greater than what we can squeeze into
the 64MB PFE DRAM.  This is a somewhat unique L3VPN application where
substantially all the routes in each VPN share the same next-hop.  It is
valuable to carry the routes in RIB but there is no need to install most
of them into the PFE, thus creating opportunity for conservation.

All mpls routes are installed in the PFE (that is, term foo { to rib
mpls.0; accept; }) and the 0/0 route in vpna is also installed.  The
next-hops are not being manipulated.  Does rpd consider what routes are
accepted by the forwarding-table export policy in its calculations?

> Do you mind providing me w/ a full config ?
Will do so off-list.

-- 
Jeff S Wheeler <jsw at inconcepts.biz>