You implement FBF on router R1 so that traffic from subnet 172.

A classic and well-documented gotcha in filter-based forwarding deployments is that the static default route configured inside each forwarding instance frequently references a next-hop address that Junos cannot resolve, simply because the interface and other directly connected routes needed to validate that next hop as reachable exist only in the master inet.0 table by default, not automatically inside the newly created forwarding instance's own table. Since a static route's next hop must be resolvable against routes present within its own routing table to become active, the static default routes inside the ISP-A and ISP-B forwarding instances remain inactive precisely because the necessary interface/next-hop routes were never made visible inside those instances. The standard solution taught for this exact FBF scenario is to configure a routing information base (RIB) group that explicitly imports the relevant interface routes between the master inet.0 table and each forwarding instance's table, allowing the static default route's next hop inside each instance to resolve correctly against the leaked routes and become active. Applying a firewall filter without ever attaching it to an interface accomplishes nothing, since an unapplied filter never evaluates any traffic. Increasing the static route's preference value only affects which competing route wins selection and does nothing to resolve an unreachable next hop. Changing the instance type away from forwarding (to virtual-router) would in fact break FBF entirely, since filter-based forwarding specifically depends on the forwarding instance type working together with a routing-instance firewall filter action. Reference topics: Junos Enterprise Routing – Protocol Independent Routing, Filter-Based Forwarding and RIB Group Route Leaking.