Very simple bird.conf

[Ondrej Filip]

On 14.4.2010 15:30, Chris Webb wrote:
> Ondrej Zajicek <santiago at crfreenet.org> writes:
> 
>> No, it is OK. BIRD just internally tried to export every route in the
>> table to every protocol and the BGP protocol internally rejects all
>> routes that were generated by the protocol itself (this is the counter
>> named 'rejected'). One route is filtered by the filter and one route is
>> finally exported to the BGP neighbor (assume it is  from direct
>> protocol).
> 
> Ah, great, okay. You're right that I was worried that 'rejected' was telling
> me that they were being exported over BGP and rejected by the remote peer.
> 
> I presume that even if I had lots of other routes coming in from another BGP
> peer, they wouldn't have been exported anyway because I export filtered out
> everything except 91.203.56.0/23 with the export where net=91.203.56.0/23
> line in the bgp protocol block?

Yes, that is true.

> 
>> One thing that is a bit strange on your setting is that you export
>> a prefix from a local interface (from a direct protocol) to a BGP
>> neighbor. Usually, there are configured static routes (from a static
>> protocol) containing aggregated prefixes which are exported to a BGP
>> neighbor.
> 
> Yes, would replacing direct { } with
> 
>   static {
>     route 0.0.0.0/0 via 84.45.39.149;
>     route 91.203.56.0/23 via "eth0";
>   }
> 
> be more idiomatic here?

Sure that would work. It really depends what you are trying to
achieve. I often use a configuration with:

static {
   route XXXX/YY drop;
}

So this route is exported to BGP, but it is not used for forwarding
and I expect to get more specific routes from IGP. But if you want to
use the whole range 91.203.56.0/23 on this host than your
configuration is OK.

			Feela



> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris.