[j-nsp] L3VPN routes seem unresolvable

[Pedro Roque Marques]

Jeff S Wheeler writes:

> 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?

Two cases:
1) The route is not installed into a VRF (only in bgp.l3vpn.0)...

2) The forwarding policy rejects the route.


>> 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.

Not sure i really understood this... i guess i will have to look at
the config.

  Pedro.