Ondrej Zajicek <santiago@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?
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? Cheers, Chris.