Hi, On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:35:48PM +0100, Pierre Emeriaud wrote: > 2015-11-16 19:26 GMT+01:00 Erik Klaassen <[email protected]>: > > > > What is the best way to prevent the exabgp route entering the fib? > > This may sound weird, but why not announcing the routes from exa with > an inaccessible next-hop (like 25.1.1.1, not announced globally)? This > should prevent them from beeing installed in fib. > > Am I missing something that would make this hack not working?
Routers generally do not propagate prefixes that are not installed
locally...
I'm wondering about the same thing, though, but have not found a solution
yet. Maybe some VRF trickery, so you have the null route in a VRF and
leak VRF routes to global BGP on export? (Not sure if that works)
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
