[Xorp-users] Route Redistribution issue in BGP - Kindly help asap.
Kristian Larsson
kristian at spritelink.se
Thu Oct 26 19:18:11 PDT 2006
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 06:36:08PM -0700, Atanu Ghosh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It should be possible to do what you want in a single term:
> policy {
> policy-statement "routes_as1_to_as2" {
> term "reject_ospf4_to_ibgp_peer" {
> from {
> protocol: "ospf4"
> }
> to {
> neighbor: 10.5.11.1
> }
> then {
> reject /*Rej ospf routes to IBGP Peer*/
> }
> }
> }
> }
>
> However it looks as if you have hit a bug with the neighbor statement:
> http://www.xorp.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=610
>
> We will look into this and get back to you.
It would be quite beneficial in cases such as this
if you could do per-peer import/export policies.
Becomes much easier to read and maintain.
Kristian.
> >>>>> "Santhosh" == Santhosh Sundararaman <santhosh at ku.edu> writes:
>
> Santhosh> Hi,
> Santhosh> I have a BGP router that is peered to one E-BGP peer and one I-BGP
> Santhosh> peer. There are several routers in the local AS and OSPF is the IGP. I
> Santhosh> am trying to redistribute the OSPF routes into BGP such that the OSPF
> Santhosh> routes are advertised to the EBGP peer but not the IBGP peer. The
> Santhosh> following is the configuration I am using.
>
> Santhosh> protocols {
> Santhosh> bgp {
> Santhosh> bgp-id: 172.16.10.3
> Santhosh> local-as: 65001
>
> Santhosh> export: "routes_as1_to_as2"
>
> Santhosh> peer 172.16.10.1 { /* EBGP Peer*/
> Santhosh> local-ip: 172.16.10.3
> Santhosh> as: 65002
> Santhosh> next-hop: 172.16.10.3
> Santhosh> holdtime: 120
> Santhosh> ipv4-unicast: true
> Santhosh> }
>
> Santhosh> peer 10.5.11.1 { /*IBGP Peer*/
> Santhosh> local-ip: 10.10.11.2
> Santhosh> as: 65001
> Santhosh> next-hop: 10.10.11.2
> Santhosh> holdtime: 120
> Santhosh> ipv4-unicast: true
> Santhosh> }
> Santhosh> }
> Santhosh> }
>
> Santhosh> policy {
> Santhosh> policy-statement "routes_as1_to_as2" {
> Santhosh> term "ospf_routes" {
> Santhosh> from {
> Santhosh> protocol: "ospf4"
> Santhosh> }
> Santhosh> to {
> Santhosh> neighbor: 172.16.10.1
> Santhosh> }
> Santhosh> then {
> Santhosh> accept /*adv ospf routes to EBGP Peer*/
> Santhosh> }
> Santhosh> }
>
> Santhosh> term "reject_ospf4_to_ibgp_peer" {
> Santhosh> from {
> Santhosh> protocol: "ospf4"
> Santhosh> }
> Santhosh> to {
> Santhosh> neighbor: 10.5.11.1
> Santhosh> }
> Santhosh> then {
> Santhosh> reject /*Rej ospf routes to IBGP Peer*/
> Santhosh> }
> Santhosh> }
> Santhosh> }
> Santhosh> }
>
> Santhosh> On using this policy the routes get advertised to both EBGP and IBGP
> Santhosh> peers and "reject_ospf_to_ibgp_peer" term appears to be ignored. I have
> Santhosh> tried specifying "reject_ospf_to_ibgp_peer" without any
> Santhosh> to{neighbor:10.5.11.1} rule, in which case the routes were not
> Santhosh> advertised to any of the peers. Am I missing something??
>
> Santhosh> The address matched against the neighbor variable in the to {} rules, is
> Santhosh> the address of the interface of the peer to which peering is establish
> Santhosh> and not the bgp-id of the peer, is that correct or should it have been
> Santhosh> the peers bgp-id instead.
>
> Santhosh> Also inside the bgp protocol construct when specifying the peers, should
> Santhosh> the peer address be the bgp-id of the peer, or can it be any one of the
> Santhosh> several interface addresses of the peer which may not be the bgp-id.
>
> Santhosh> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Santhosh> Thanks
> Santhosh> Santhosh
>
> Santhosh> _______________________________________________
> Santhosh> Xorp-users mailing list
> Santhosh> Xorp-users at xorp.org
> Santhosh> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xorp-users mailing list
> Xorp-users at xorp.org
> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users
--
Kristian Larsson KLL-RIPE
Network Engineer Net at Once [AS35706]
+46 704 910401 kristian at spritelink.se
More information about the Xorp-users
mailing list