[j-nsp] Optimizing the FIB on MX

[Vincent Bernat]

 ❦ 17 février 2016 21:07 GMT, Alexander Arseniev <arseniev at btinternet.com> :

>> If the condition system would allow me to match a next-hop or an
>> interface in addition to a route, I could do:
>>
>>   3. Reject any route with upstream as next-hop if there is a default
>>      route to upstream.
>>
>>   4. Reject any route with peer as next-hop if there is a default route
>>      to peer.
>>
>>   5. Accept everything else.
>
> True, one cannot match on "next-hop" in "condition", only on exact
> prefix+table name.
> But this can be done using "route isolation" approach.
> So, the overall approach is:
> 1/ create a separate table and leak a 0/0 route there matching on 0/0
> exact + next-hop ("isolate the interested route"). Use
> "instance-import" + policy.

Thanks for the suggestion. I tried to do that but was unable to create a
separate table and do the leak.

policy-options {
 rib XXXX.0 { ... }
}

In this case XXXX.0 is not recognized as a table in condition. But I
only tried with XXXX.0. From example, maybe I should have tried
XXXX.0.inet.0?

So, I tried to create a routing instance for that purpose but I did try
to use a generated route and I wasn't able to have it goes up. I can try
to use import instead.

So, is a separate table defined with policy-options rib or with a
routing-instance?

> Disclaimer - I haven't tested this myself.

I'll try that.
-- 
Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits.
		-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"