[Xorp-users] Fwd: from and to blocks of policy terms

[Andreas Voellmy]

Thanks Pavlin! A couple more questions below ...

On Feb 11, 2008 2:19 PM, Pavlin Radoslavov <pavlin at icsi.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> A small piece of information that might be helpful for you: for
> export policy the "from" block must have the "protocol" set. I.e.,
> you can't export routes if the protocol is not specified.


Is the "protocol" attribute required in the "from" clause in every export
policy, or only in those which are redistributing routes from another
protocol?


>
> For example, "from {} to {neighbor: 192.168.1.2} then {accept}"
> can't be used as an export policy, but can be used as an import
> policy. As an import policy, when the routes reach the outbound
> evaluation, only the routes to neighbor 192.168.1.2 will be
> accepted (i.e., transmitted).


I am still a bit confused. Would it be a valid export policy if it had a
protocol attribute in the from clause, i.e. if it was like this: "from
{protocol: bgp} to {neighbor: 192.168.1.2} then {accept}"?

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if "from {} to {neighbor:
192.168.1.2} then {accept}" were an IMPORT policy, then it would be
equivalent to the following EXPORT policy "from {protocol: bgp} to
{neighbor: 192.168.1.2} then {accept}"?


>
> Similarly, "from {neighbor: 192.168.1.2} to {} then {accept}" also
> cannot be used as an export policy. As an import policy it will
> accept only the routes coming from neighbor 192.168.1.2.
>

Again, would it be a valid export policy if it were modified to "from
{protocol: bgp; neighbor: 192.168.1.2} to {} then {accept}"?

-Andreas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/pipermail/xorp-users/attachments/20080211/17003893/attachment.html