Sure, the neighborship must be within the routing-instance because that’s where the neighbor is connected. I don’t believe you can create a peer using a leaked route.
I don’t believe rib-groups will solve this either, but I’m not certain. It is worth the attempt, but I am not confident of the success. > On Jul 4, 2016, at 9:11 PM, Eduardo Schoedler <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Aaron, > > Perhaps can I do this using rib-groups within bgp neighbor family inet > unicast knob? > > I also tried declare bgp neighbor in main table, but even leaking > connected routes, they say "No route to host" but the routes are > there. > > Thanks. > > 2016-07-05 0:07 GMT-03:00 Aaron Dewell <[email protected]>: >> >> The routes have to exist in the table in order to be available to a policy. >> So you’ll have to leak them first. >> >> Any policy only has access to the routes within it’s context. >> >> You could route them to discard after they are leaked however. That way, >> they still exist even if they are inactive. (see the advertise-inactive >> knob). >> >>> On Jul 4, 2016, at 9:02 PM, Eduardo Schoedler <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Can I announce all prefixes from main table in a bgp session that is >>> into a routing-instance? I can't leak the prefixes, only advertise >>> them, because it's a looking glass session, like Routeviews. >>> >>> All tips are welcome. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> -- >>> Eduardo Schoedler >>> _______________________________________________ >>> juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >> > > > > -- > Eduardo Schoedler _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
