Quantcast
Channel: All Routing posts
Viewing all 8688 articles
Browse latest View live

Disabled interface showing in BGP

$
0
0

Hello Experts,

 

This might be a newbie question!

I have an interface which is administratively disable. But still that interface routes shows in neighbor BGP peer. Here is the config:

 

root@R2> show configuration interfaces lo0disable;
unit 0 {
    family inet {
        address 2.2.2.3/24;
    }
}

root@R2> show configuration protocols bgp
export Test;
group test {
    neighbor 1.1.1.1 {
        peer-as 100;
    }
}

root@R2> show configuration policy-options policy-statement Test
term 1 {
    from {
        route-filter 2.2.2.2/32 address-mask 255.255.255.0;
    }
    then accept;
}
term 2 {
    then reject;
}

root@R2>

Here is the peer route table:

 

root@R1> show route protocol bgp

inet.0: 4 destinations, 5 routes (4 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both

2.2.2.3/32          [BGP/170] 00:04:31, localpref 222
                      AS path: 200 I
                    > to 1.1.1.2 via em0.0

root@R1>

I'm wondering how the admin down routes are propagated to other peers.


Re: Policy Statement

$
0
0

It will not block 2.2.2.3/24

 

root@R2> show configuration policy-options policy-statement Test
term 1 {
    from {
        route-filter 2.2.2.2/32 exact;
    }
    then accept;
}
term 2 {
    then reject;
}

 

Regards,

Rahul

 

 

Re: Policy Statement

$
0
0
Hello Rahul,

But will this block everything else? Or do I have to write a from statement as well. From should be any.

term 2 {
then reject;
}

Just trying to learn basics.. Smiley Happy

Re: Disabled interface showing in BGP

$
0
0

It will not advertise the route.  Can you do show route 2.2.2.3 on R2?

 

Regards,

Rahul

 

 

 

Re: Policy Statement

$
0
0

term 2 reject is enough Smiley Happy

 

Regards,

Rahul

Same are OSPF route showing up as External

$
0
0

Hello Experts,

 

I have configured two routers in OSPF area 0. But when I check the peer router, it receives OSPF routes with an administrative value of 150 which I learnt as external OSPF. Can anyone please explain why the route is external.

 

 

root@R2> show configuration protocols ospf
export New;
area 0.0.0.0 {
    interface em0.0;
}Receiving router:

root@R1> show route protocol ospf

inet.0: 4 destinations, 5 routes (4 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both

2.2.2.3/32         *[OSPF/150] 00:01:53, metric 0, tag 0> to 1.1.1.2 via em0.0
224.0.0.5/32       *[OSPF/10] 00:36:04, metric 1
                      MultiRecv

root@R1>

 

Re: Disabled interface showing in BGP

$
0
0
Its showing as a reject route.

root@R2> show route 2.2.2.3

inet.0: 4 destinations, 4 routes (4 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both

2.2.2.3/32 *[Local/0] 00:52:28
Reject

root@R2>

Re: Disabled interface showing in BGP

$
0
0

Tried clearing the BGP neighborship, the route still shows up.

 

root@R1> clear bgp neighbor
Cleared 1 connections

root@R1> show route 2.2.2.3

inet.0: 4 destinations, 4 routes (4 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both

2.2.2.3/32         *[OSPF/150] 00:17:24, metric 0, tag 0
                    > to 1.1.1.2 via em0.0

root@R1> show route 2.2.2.3

inet.0: 4 destinations, 5 routes (4 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both

2.2.2.3/32         *[OSPF/150] 00:17:25, metric 0, tag 0
                    > to 1.1.1.2 via em0.0 [BGP/170] 00:00:01, localpref 222
                      AS path: 200 I> to 1.1.1.2 via em0.0
root@R1>

Re: Disabled interface showing in BGP

$
0
0

This is the reason it is advertised. 

 

Loopback you've configured /24 when you disable the loopback /32 will show as reject. You can add protocol direct in your policy statement to fix this issue.

 

policy-statement Test {
    from {
        protocol direct;
        route-filter 2.2.2.2/32 exact;
    }
}

 

Regards,

Rahul

Re: Same are OSPF route showing up as External

$
0
0

You're redistributing the route in OSPF using export. Expected.

 

Regards,

Rahul

Re: Disabled interface showing in BGP

$
0
0

Its surprising to learn that even if the interface is down, and there is no other matching network interface the router will advertise the router just because of the reason that its specified in the router filter/policy. 

 

This brings me to the question what exactly is the purpose of policy statement. I was under the impression that the route will fillter check if there is a corresponding route in route table and then advertise it. Am I incorrect?

Re: Disabled interface showing in BGP

$
0
0
Hi,

Your understanding is wrong. You have configured /24 address in loopback which creates two route local and direct. When you disable the loopback, /32 will be marked as reject. This is avoid punting the packets to RE. You can read the difference b/w discard and reject route.

Policy statement created by you doesn't mention any protocol. Since there is reject route available in routing table, policy statement will match and advertise this route.

Expected behavior of Junos.

Re: Disabled interface showing in BGP

$
0
0

Junos OS requires that the loopback interface always be configured with a /32 network mask because the Routing Engine is essentially a host.

Once you change the loopback address to /32 and disable the loopback , there won't be any route available in routing table matching your policy statement. Hence loopback will not be advertised.

 

Regards,

Rahul

Re: Is possible to ECMP on vrf using only source-ip address hashing

Re: Disabled interface showing in BGP

$
0
0

We sometimes use discard and reject routes to get a route into the routing table so that we can advertise it to a BGP neighbor. 

 

In your case instead of disabling the interface you can use deactivate on the address stanza to remove the address from the table.

 

deactivate lo0 unit 0 family inet address 2.2.2.3/24

 


Re: Disabled interface showing in BGP

$
0
0

Hi Krishna,

 

Hope your queries has been answered. Please help to close the thread by accepting the solution so it can be referred by others.

 

Regards,

Rahul

Re: Same are OSPF route showing up as External

Re: Disabled interface showing in BGP

$
0
0

Hello Rahul,

 

Thanks for answering all my Junos noob questions patiently.. Smiley LOL

MX Series Routing Engine and SCB datasheet

$
0
0

We are presently running the following RE and SCB in our environment. We are planning for future upgrade and will require information on the replacement RE and SCB types. In addition, I will need the FIB/RIB IPv4 and IPv6 capacity for the current cards and the suggested cards as this information is vital for identifying the cards that will need replacement. Any link to the datasheet of these RE and SCB will be highly appreciated.

Egress and Ingress Dropflow

$
0
0

Hi Experts,

 

I am new to CGNAT .Can anyone help me understand about egress and ingress dropflow and whether following output is normal or shows something wrong??

            Interface   Service Set     Current             Current             Pkt drop                Pkt drop

                                        Ingress DropFlow    Egress DropFlow     Exceed Ingress Limit    Exceed Egress Limit

            ams7        AMS020               283                    854                     0                      0        

            ams8        AMS021               267                    963                     0                      0        

            ams9        AMS022               126                    1096                    0                      0        

            ams10       AMS023               270                    653                     0                      0        

 

There are no packet drops,but still showing ingress ,egress drop flows?

Thank you,

 

Viewing all 8688 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>