[j-nsp] Full BGP table, one provider w/ 2 routers, slow forwarding convergence

[Darren O'Connor]

> I do need the full Internet feeds for other reasons, but I am interested 
> in the option to filter routes between RIB & FIB to keep my FIB smaller, 
> but send the full table downstream.  What JUNOS knob does that?

Create a policy matching specific BGP routes and export into the forwarding table, exclude all other BGP routes and then accept all else. The RIB is still full as normal and can be advertised to other peers. Of course make sure you have some kind of default route in your fib to send traffic on it's way

Thanks
Darren
http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie



> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:01:17 -0400
> From: chmorl at wm.edu
> To: amos at oasis-tech.net
> CC: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Full BGP table, one provider w/ 2 routers, slow forwarding convergence
> 
> Amos,
> 
> I am using an MX240, and I am aware of the MX80 platform issue when 
> dealing with multiple BGP feeds.  I have the newer 1800 RE, so I was 
> hoping to completely avoid anything like that with a beefier RE, running 
> 64-bit JUNOS.
> 
> I do need the full Internet feeds for other reasons, but I am interested 
> in the option to filter routes between RIB & FIB to keep my FIB smaller, 
> but send the full table downstream.  What JUNOS knob does that?
> 
> Do you happen to know the PR number on the full routing table and netflow 
> issue? I am doing inline-jflow, so perhaps that may have something to do 
> with it.
> 
> Clarke Morledge
> College of William and Mary
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, Amos Rosenboim wrote:
> 
> > What model of router are you using ?
> > What you are describing is a general problem of juniper routers, however it's really bad on
> > the low-mid range routers, MX5-80, the 104 is slightly better but not very.
> > The stronger REs are less prone for this, although the real solution is a serious change to
> > RPD.
> > Recent releases should have incremental improvements, although afaik the root cause was not
> > corrected.
> > 
> > There was also another similar issue that involved full routing table and netflow.
> > I believe this one was corrected in one of the recent releases.
> > 
> > Do you really need full routing table?
> > Especially when both links are to the same ISP?
> > 
> > There is also an option to filter routes between the RIB and FIB, so you can send the full
> > table downstream but rely on a smaller set of routes for forwarding.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Amos
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp