[j-nsp] Optimizing the FIB on MX

[Alexander Arseniev]

Hello,
a/ please create an instance of type no-forwarding (default) or 
virtual-router. They both accept "instance-import <policy-name>" knob.
b/ please don't use generated route, use a true BGP 0/0 route.
You can use logical systems for testing if You lack actual physical routers.
Thx
Alex

On 17/02/2016 21:50, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>   ❦ 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.