What is the reason for this behavior?

— Exhibit —
[edit]
user@srx# run show route
inet.0: 10 destinations, 10 routes (10 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
+ = Active Route, – = Last Active, * = Both
0.0.0.0/0 *[Static/5] 01:09:08
> to 172.18.1.1 via ge-0/0/3.0
10.210.14.128/27 *[Direct/0] 8w6d 15:43:09
> via ge-0/0/0.0
10.210.14.135/32 *[Local/0] 11w0d 06:43:04
Local via ge-0/0/0.0
172.18.1.0/30 *[Direct/0] 8w6d 15:43:01

> via ge-0/0/3.0
172.18.1.2/32 *[Local/0] 11w0d 06:43:03
Local via ge-0/0/3.0
172.19.1.0/24 *[Direct/0] 03:46:56
> via ge-0/0/1.0
172.19.1.1/32 *[Local/0] 03:46:56
Local via ge-0/0/1.0
172.20.105.0/24 *[Direct/0] 03:46:56
> via ge-0/0/4.105
172.20.105.1/32 *[Local/0] 03:46:56
Local via ge-0/0/4.105
192.168.30.1/32 *[Direct/0] 4d 03:44:41
> via lo0.0
fbf.inet.0: 2 destinations, 2 routes (2 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
+ = Active Route, – = Last Active, * = Both
0.0.0.0/0 *[Static/5] 00:00:11
> to 172.19.1.2 via ge-0/0/1.0
172.19.1.0/24 *[Direct/0] 00:00:11
> via ge-0/0/1.0
[edit]
user@srx# show routing-instances
fbf {
routing-options {
static {
route 0.0.0.0/0 next-hop 172.19.1.2;
}

}
}
[edit]
user@srx# show routing-options
interface-routes {
rib-group inet fbf-int;
}
static {
route 0.0.0.0/0 next-hop 172.18.1.1;
}
rib-groups {
fbf-int {
import-rib [ inet.0 fbf.inet.0 ];
import-policy fbf-pol;
}
}
[edit]
user@srx# show policy-options policy-statement fbf-pol
term 1 {
from interface ge-0/0/1.0;
to rib fbf.inet.0;
then accept;
}
term 2 {
then reject;
}

— Exhibit —
Referring to the exhibit, you notice that filter-based forwarding is not working.
What is the reason for this behavior?

— Exhibit —
[edit]
user@srx# run show route
inet.0: 10 destinations, 10 routes (10 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
+ = Active Route, – = Last Active, * = Both
0.0.0.0/0 *[Static/5] 01:09:08
> to 172.18.1.1 via ge-0/0/3.0
10.210.14.128/27 *[Direct/0] 8w6d 15:43:09
> via ge-0/0/0.0
10.210.14.135/32 *[Local/0] 11w0d 06:43:04
Local via ge-0/0/0.0
172.18.1.0/30 *[Direct/0] 8w6d 15:43:01

> via ge-0/0/3.0
172.18.1.2/32 *[Local/0] 11w0d 06:43:03
Local via ge-0/0/3.0
172.19.1.0/24 *[Direct/0] 03:46:56
> via ge-0/0/1.0
172.19.1.1/32 *[Local/0] 03:46:56
Local via ge-0/0/1.0
172.20.105.0/24 *[Direct/0] 03:46:56
> via ge-0/0/4.105
172.20.105.1/32 *[Local/0] 03:46:56
Local via ge-0/0/4.105
192.168.30.1/32 *[Direct/0] 4d 03:44:41
> via lo0.0
fbf.inet.0: 2 destinations, 2 routes (2 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
+ = Active Route, – = Last Active, * = Both
0.0.0.0/0 *[Static/5] 00:00:11
> to 172.19.1.2 via ge-0/0/1.0
172.19.1.0/24 *[Direct/0] 00:00:11
> via ge-0/0/1.0
[edit]
user@srx# show routing-instances
fbf {
routing-options {
static {
route 0.0.0.0/0 next-hop 172.19.1.2;
}

}
}
[edit]
user@srx# show routing-options
interface-routes {
rib-group inet fbf-int;
}
static {
route 0.0.0.0/0 next-hop 172.18.1.1;
}
rib-groups {
fbf-int {
import-rib [ inet.0 fbf.inet.0 ];
import-policy fbf-pol;
}
}
[edit]
user@srx# show policy-options policy-statement fbf-pol
term 1 {
from interface ge-0/0/1.0;
to rib fbf.inet.0;
then accept;
}
term 2 {
then reject;
}

— Exhibit —
Referring to the exhibit, you notice that filter-based forwarding is not working.
What is the reason for this behavior?

A.
The RIB group is configured incorrectly.

B.
The routing policy is configured incorrectly.

C.
The routing instance is configured incorrectly.

D.
The default static routes are configured incorrectly.

Explanation:

Bydefault, wehave a static route in a routing instancesendingthe default route to
172.19.1.2.Wewant to hijack traffic matching a particular filter and send the traffic to a different
next-hop, 172.18.1.1. Weshouldcreate your rib group by importing FIRST the table belonging to
your virtual router and SECOND the table for the forwarding instancethat has the next-hop
specified.
Reference:http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB17223



Leave a Reply 3

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Josh

Josh

Answer should be “A” even when the explanation given is correct; the misconfiguration is on the rib group definition, not on the routing instance.

Juniper

Juniper

Josh, where is the type of the routing-instance? The misconfiguration is that it doesnt specify if it is type forwarding or type virtual router…

new

new

thank god you are watching Josh , all his answers are wrong jajajajajajajaja