For the route to remove the subnet where the next hop exists must be no longer available, the link to the router itself would need to go down.
To have failover with the link still up you need some kind of probe mechanism like RPM enabled.
------------------------------
Steve Puluka BSEET - Juniper Ambassador
IP Architect - DQE Communications Pittsburgh, PA (Metro Ethernet & ISP)
http://puluka.com/home------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-24-2021 04:32
From: Unknown User
Subject: QFX Qualified next hop behaviour
Hi,
I made an attempt to introduce a failover link in lab last week. We wanted to keep it simple and just use static routes (no bfd or tracking if not needed?).
Configuration used:
set routing-instances TRANSIT routing-options static route 192.168.52.0/22 next-hop 10.0.0.9set routing-instances TRANSIT routing-options static route 10.0.0.72/29 next-hop 10.0.0.9 set routing-instances TRANSIT routing-options static route 10.11.128.0/17 next-hop 10.0.0.9 set routing-instances TRANSIT routing-options static route 192.168.52.0/22 qualified-next-hop 10.0.0.17 preference 50set routing-instances TRANSIT routing-options static route 10.0.0.72/29 qualified-next-hop 10.0.0.17 preference 50set routing-instances TRANSIT routing-options static route 10.11.128.0/17 qualified-next-hop 10.0.0.17 preference 50TRANSIT.inet.0: 30 destinations, 33 routes (30 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both192.168.52.0/22 *[Static/5] 00:38:16 > to 10.0.0.9 via irb.3001 [Static/50] 00:38:16 > to 10.0.0.17 via irb.3002
Both routes gets inserted into the routing table and both next hops are ping:able within the routing instance, all good so far.
What is the requirement/trigger for the static route with distance 5 to be removed from the table? My assumption was that if the next hop became unresponsive this route would be removed automatically. However when we remove an intermediate link (not the cable connected to this router) the route stays even if it's not useable anymore. Am I wrong here? Does irb.3001 also need to go down before the primary static route is removed?