[j-nsp] rib-group requirement for master rib

[Ben Dale]

Perfect - thanks Stacy 

On 29/11/2012, at 12:00 PM, Stacy W. Smith <stacy at acm.org> wrote:

> Configure interface-routes at the [edit routing-instances CUSTOMER-A routing-options] hierarchy rather than the [edit routing-options] hierarchy. Continue to define rib-groups at the [edit routing-options] hierarchy.
> 
> [edit]
> root at srx210# show routing-options 
> rib-groups {
>    FBF-PBR {
>        import-rib [ CUSTOMER-A.inet.0 FBF-PBR.inet.0 ];
>    }
> }
> 
> [edit]
> root at srx210# show routing-instances 
> CUSTOMER-A {
>    instance-type virtual-router;
>    routing-options {
>        interface-routes {
>            rib-group inet FBF-PBR;
>        }
>    }
> }
> 
> [edit]
> root at srx210# commit check 
> configuration check succeeds
> 
> 
> --Stacy
> 
> 
> On Nov 28, 2012, at 5:39 PM, Ben Dale <bdale at comlinx.com.au> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> I have a requirement for performing Filter-based Forwarding on traffic that is ingressing via a routing-instance (instance-type virtual-router):
>> 
>> show routing-options:
>> 
>> interface-routes {
>>   rib-group inet FBF-PBR;
>> }
>> 
>> rib-groups {
>>   FBF-PBR {
>>       import-rib [ CUSTOMER-A.inet.0 FBF-PBR.inet.0 ];
>>   }
>> }
>> 
>> Problem I have is that I can't seem to commit without including inet.0 in the rib-group:
>> 
>> root at srx240-lab# commit check 
>> [edit routing-options interface-routes]
>> 'rib-group'
>>   FBF-PBR: primary rib for instance master was not found in ribgroup configuration.
>> error: configuration check-out failed
>> 
>> Putting inet.0 in the rib-group isn't desirable, as it exposes direct routes into the RI which I'm trying to hide in the first place.  is there a better/different way to be doing this?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Ben
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>