No, the neighbor next-hop-self command doesn't have any impact on reflected routes. But I guess it would prevent IPv6 routes known from eBGP by the RR to be sent with an IPv6 NH as unlabeled (but maybe there are none?). I wonder if BGP IPv6 routes in the RR, known with an IPv6 NH instead of an IPv4+label NH, could be the source of your problem ? In those conditions, maybe a generalized next-hop-self in your whole iBGP could be fine? Just thinking aloud, but it could make sense.
> and move all the traffic through RR? :) > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Olivier Benghozi > <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe you could try to configure next-hop-self on the Cisco's side, on all > AFI? > > Le 4 sept. 2012 à 13:12, Mihai Gabriel a écrit : > > > You are partially right. The bgp session is established without > > inet6-unicast capability advertised by Juniper, but as soon as Juniper > > receives an ipv6 prefix with a native ipv6 next-hop from Cisco, it will > > immediately close the session . > > > > My Cisco router is a route reflector with a lot of clients and some of them > > are advertising ipv6 prefixes with a native ipv6 next-hop and also ipv4 > > prefixes.In this setup,closing the session will affect all services.. _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
