[j-nsp] next-hop driving me crazy

[Jerry Dent]

Also, you can do "then next-hop discard" in your policy and you won't need
the static route.


On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:14:39AM -0500, Eric Krichbaum wrote:
> > Thanks everyone.  The policy straight to discard works for me, just
> annoyed
> > me.  I really didn't want to apply a knob (similar to the disable
> connected
> > check on cisco) to do it.  Trying to make these policies the same has
> proven
> > an interesting exercise and at least now I am aware of the knobs to make
> it
> > do the other.
>
> It's technically a violation of the BGP spec to let the user arbitrarily
> rewrite the next-hop of a eBGP non-multihop route to something other
> than the directly connected interface, and the "correct" action when you
> do it is to reject the route for having an invalid next-hop.
>
> Of course, over here in reality land that's complete nonsense. There are
> perfectly legitimate reasons to do so, like the example you cited, but
> it took a LONG time to get this past the guys who defend the theory
> without regard to practice. You used to have to configure ebgp multihop
> everywhere to get it to relax those rules, which carries its own
> downsides like lack of "fast external failover" behavior. The commands
> like "disable-connected-check" and "accept-remote-nexthop" were the
> compromises between following the spec and satisfying the customer. ;)
>
> --
> Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
> GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>