Routing

I notice that there is no rib-group option under aggregate. Why is this? I notice one of the previous posts talks about using 'istance-import' but this only appears not to work from the one VRF to another. The only other option I can think of is to use static routes with discard but these do not benifit from contributing routes. Any one understand why this option is not available and have any suggestions better than using statics?

I am implementing on MX480, 13.3R9.13.

Thanks

set routing-options rib <rib> aggregate route...

works for me under Junos 15.1F6.

Check out:

http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos16.1/topics/concept/policy-aggregate-routes.html

For more information.

I am talking about moving aggregate routes from one VRF to another using rib-groups in the same way that can be done for direct, static, OSPF, BGP routes etc., not defining routes in the routing table.

The option is not there:

{master}[edit routing-instances R-1]
lab@MX480_re0# set routing-options static ri?
Possible completions:
rib-group Routing table group

{master}[edit routing-instances R-1]

lab@MX480_re0# set routing-options aggregate ?
Possible completions:
+ apply-groups Groups from which to inherit configuration data
+ apply-groups-except Don't inherit configuration data from these groups
> defaults Global route options
> route Individual route options

Try using an import policy with the "instance import" function instead of rib groups.  This is more flexible and may allow the import.

https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB19787

I did try this but it only appears to work to or from the default routing instance and one other VRF, not between VRFs.

Another option then is to create a logical tunnel interface.  These are virtual interfaces inside the MX.  They tunnel traffic between the two interfaces.

You then place one interface in each routing-instance.  and assign a /31 address set to the two interfaces.

Now you can treat this as if there were a physical interface connection between the two routing-instances and setup BGP or any other method to share routes directly.

https://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos14.1/topics/example/logical-tunnels-configuring.html

Yes, I agree that would work as a solution. I have decided to go with the static discard option and use rib-groups as that works for our scenario. I am a little puzzled why this option is not available for aggragte routes but appears to be available for other protocols.

Thanks

Many years later,  Junipers configuration here is inconsistent, I'm here for exact the same issue I have managed this. 

it seems rib groups have no facility to move aggregates from one instance to another 

and "instance import " has no facility to move interfaces so you have to use a combination of both :-/

[edit policy-options policy-statement master>instance]
lab@vmx2# show 
term 10 {
    from {
        instance master;
        protocol aggregate;
        route-filter 0.0.0.0/0 exact;
    }
    then accept;
}


[edit routing-instances]
lab@vmx2# show prefer_other_exit 
instance-type forwarding;
routing-options {
    instance-import master>instance;
}

lab@vmx2# run show route 0/0 exact            

inet.0: 250 destinations, 389 routes (250 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both

0.0.0.0/0          *[Aggregate/130] 01:29:11
                      Discard
                    [BGP/170] 01:29:10, localpref 50, from 192.168.0.1
                      AS path: 1111 ?, validation-state: unverified
                    > to 192.168.12.1 via ge-0/0/4.0


prefer_other_exit.inet.0: 249 destinations, 487 routes (249 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both

0.0.0.0/0          *[Aggregate/130] 00:04:33
                      Discard