[j-nsp] mx-class units now advertisement management interface networks in BGP

[Jo Rhett]

This is exactly what I'm looking for, thanks. Although I suspect I need another one which says static routes with a next hop on fxp0.0 should also be ignored?

I really wish I hadn't wasted 2 days of nonsense with your main tech support line who couldn't understand the considerations at all. Is there some way to get a ticket directed to a group of people who grasp BGP routing?

On Sep 27, 2012, at 1:30 PM, Doug Hanks wrote:
> If you want to advertise direct interfaces, but exclude fxp0, you could do something like this that you could cut and paste across N routers without having to modify (thanks Harry for confirming):
> 
> term block-fxp {
>     from interface fxp0.0;
>     then reject;
> }
> 
> From: Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com>
> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:06:30 -0700
> To: Harry Reynolds <harry at juniper.net>, dhanks <dhanks at juniper.net>
> Cc: "juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net" <juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] mx-class units now advertisement management interface networks in BGP
> 
>> Reply to Harry and Doug both since you mostly asked the same question.
>> 
>> On Sep 27, 2012, at 12:13 PM, Harry Reynolds wrote:
>>> It might help if you posted your BGP export policy. IIRC, there is a no-readvertise flag available for a static but not aware of any inherent blocking of the advertisement of an fxpo address via BGP, more so if your export permits it.
>> 
>> 
>> To me it is a bug to advertise a route which you won't route packets for. Obviously it's your fault if you advertise a route and have a packet filter blocking packets -- the routing engine isn't responsible for this. But fxp0 is supposedly on its own routing fabric. I can't send packets in ae0 destined for something on the fxp0 network.
>> 
>> If a route visible in one routing engine was advertised out by another routing engine (with no route-sharing between them) this would be a bug, yes? Why isn't fxp0 treated the same way?
>> 
>> Finally, we have the same export policy on every node in our network. Having to break that out, and hand-tune every export policy to explicitly deny the fxp0 interface's routes is a lot of work with zero gain. If for some reason Juniper feels that it's important to someone somewhere to announce a route you won't accept packets for, why isn't there any easy method to disable this nonsensical, nonfunctional, nobody in their right mind would or could use it (non)functionality?
>> 
>> Obviously, a feature request for "protocol bgp { interface fxp0 { ignore; }}" would do the trick, but I struggle to believe that you've never seen this problem before, and you don't have a better way to prevent this behavior.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jo Rhett
>> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
>> 
>> 
>> 

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.