[j-nsp] how to populate a forwarding routing-instance

[Bit Gossip]

there is no interface in PIPPO routing-instance; therefore the ping 
fails even if I don't specify the source address:
rc2# run ping 1.1.1.2 routing-instance PIPPO
PING 1.1.1.2 (1.1.1.2): 56 data bytes
ping: sendto: Can't assign requested address


The idea was to source the bgp session in routing-instance PIPPO from 
the same interface 1.1.1.1 that is in the global instance.

Thanks,
bit.


martin.mogensen at bt.com wrote:
> Does the ping work if you don't specify the source address? This way the ping can use a source address that is native to the routing-instance, ie a loopback interface declared in the routing-instance.
>
> run ping 1.1.1.2 routing-instance PIPPO
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Bit Gossip [mailto:bit.gossip at chello.nl] 
> Envoyé : mercredi 6 mai 2009 15:53
> À : Mogensen,M,Martin,JPECS R
> Cc : juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Objet : Re: [j-nsp] how to populate a forwarding routing-instance
>
> Hi Martin,
> indeed with rib-group I can import in the routing-instance PIPPO the connected and local routes, but still BGP doesn't come up because I think the process can not bind to the address of the local interface which is still part of a different routing-instance, the default one. 
> For the same reason while also ping fails:
>
> rc2# run ping 1.1.1.2 source 1.1.1.1 routing-instance PIPPO PING 1.1.1.2 (1.1.1.2): 56 data bytes
> ping: sendto: Can't assign requested address
>
> Thanks,
> bit.
>
> martin.mogensen at bt.com wrote:
>   
>> Indeed, the interfaces routes from inet.0 are unknown to your new routing-instance which is as expected. You can use rib-groups (routing table groups) to import the connected interface routes into your new routing-instance. 
>>
>> I haven't tested the exact config below, but the concept is as follows:
>>
>> # define that interface routes should be processed by a new rib-group 
>> routing-options {
>>     interface-routes {
>>         rib-group inet connected;
>>         }
>>     }
>> # define that the routes matching the new rib-groups are copied from inet.0 to your new routing-instance
>>     rib-groups connected {
>>         import-rib [ inet.0 PIPPO.0 ];
>>    }
>> }
>>
>> You may call that exporting routes but JUNOS sees it as importing routes. Guess it depends on the perspective. 
>>
>> When you do a show you after the commit, the connected routes from inet.0 should show up in PIPPO.0 with "Primary Routing Table inet.0" if you do a "show route detail". Same route, but in a different table.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Martin
>>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Bit Gossip [mailto:bit.gossip at chello.nl] Envoyé : mercredi 6 mai 
>> 2009 14:48 À : Mogensen,M,Martin,JPECS R Cc : 
>> juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net Objet : Re: [j-nsp] how to populate a 
>> forwarding routing-instance
>>
>> Martin,
>> as a 'virtual-router' the protocol configuration commits correctly but still I have a little problem:
>> to setup the BGP session, I need the connecting interface in the routing-instance PIPPO as well as in the global routing-instance for normal forwarding and this is not accepted :-( any idea how to work around that?
>> Thanks,
>> bit.
>>
>> martin.mogensen at bt.com wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>>  
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> Try "instance-type virtual-router" instead of "instance-type forwarding" to be able to support routing protocols - this way the commit should work. "instance-type virtual-router" also support filter-based forwarding.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>> De : juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
>>> [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] De la part de Bit Gossip 
>>> Envoyé : mercredi 6 mai 2009 12:18 À : juniper-nsp Objet : [j-nsp] 
>>> how to populate a forwarding routing-instance
>>>
>>> Experts,
>>> I want to configure FilterBasedForwarding and so I need a routing-instance of type forwarding.
>>> I have no issue to populate the routing-instance with static routes; but in reality I would like to use bgp to populate it; and this doesn't commit.
>>> Is it possible to use bgp for that? If not, any other way to achieve FBF using a routing protocol rather than static for the alternate forwarding?
>>> Thanks,
>>> bit.
>>>
>>> lab at rc2# show | compare
>>> [edit routing-instances]
>>> +   PIPPO {
>>> +       instance-type forwarding;
>>> +           router-id 1.1.1.1;
>>> +           autonomous-system 1;
>>> +       }
>>> +       protocols {
>>> +           bgp {
>>> +               group BC {
>>> +                   neighbor 2.2.2.2 {
>>> +                       peer-as 2;
>>> +                   }
>>> +               }
>>> +           }
>>> +       }
>>> +   }
>>>
>>> [edit]
>>> lab at rc2# commit check
>>> [edit routing-instances PIPPO]
>>>   'protocols'
>>>     Protocol BGP not allowed under forwarding (0x1) instance PIPPO
>>> error: configuration check-out failed
>>>
>>> rc2# run show version
>>> Hostname: rc2
>>> Model: mx480
>>> JUNOS Base OS boot [9.3-20090213.1]
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net 
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>>   
>>>     
>>>       
>>   
>>     
>
>