On Wed, 20 Mar 2024, Dmitry Melekhov wrote:
> Problem here is that 2.15 is already in epel.
>
> Many systems will be broken soon if not already...
Given BIRD 2.15.1 has been released, EPEL users could run:
dnf update --enablerepo=epel-testing "bird*"
Unfortunately, only very less people add
edates the RHEL 9 final release by about half a
year. Thus no need to use foreign buildsystems or local builds for RHEL 8
and 9 (or clones/derivatives) ;-)
Kind regards
Robert Scheck
Hello,
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024, L Cruzero wrote:
> I'm currently running bird2 on rocky8.6, though I need to do some testing
> on rocky9.
> In the near future, will there be a release made available of Bird2 that
> can run Rocky9 ?
if you run Rocky Linux 8 currently, where do you get your BIRD
Hello Maria,
hello Ondrej,
On Sun, 08 Oct 2023, Maria Matejka wrote:
> On 2023-10-08 23:06, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> >On Sun, Oct 08, 2023 at 10:18:24PM +0200, Maria Matejka via Bird-users wrote:
> >>Sorry, support for CentOS / RHEL 7 has been discontinued due to a too old
> >>kernel version and
On Sat, 07 Oct 2023, Ondrej Filip wrote:
> Version 2.14
> o MPLS subsystem
> o L3VPN: BGP/MPLS VPNs (RFC 4364)
> o BGP: Access to unknown route attributes
> o RAdv: Custom options
> o Babel: RTT metric extension
> o BMP: Refactored route monitoring
> o BMP: Multiple instances of BMP
Hello,
with https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176483, Red Hat pointed
me today to CVE-2021-26928. https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-26928
contains a reference to BIRD 2.0.7, but no link related to BIRD upstream.
Do you see any chance for some comments on it (at least here)?
On Sun, 19 Sep 2021, Robert Scheck wrote:
> rpki-client recently implemented the "expires" instruction for roa-sets
> that OpenBGPD provides [1][2]. As of writing, BIRD does not seem to have
> something similar...any chance for it? From my understanding this only
> applies
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023, haima via Bird-users wrote:
> function is_rpki_invalid () { }
> if roa_check(roa_table4, net, bgp_path.last) = ROA_INVALID then
> return true
> if roa_check(roa_table6, net, bgp_path.last) = ROA_INVALID then
> return true;
> return false;
> }
I might
[1] https://man.openbsd.org/bgpd.conf#roa-set
[2]
https://github.com/rpki-client/rpki-client-openbsd/commit/7bf63da6ec80f37bd72dbab99a5a71cee5707dc2
Kind regards
Robert Scheck
On Fri, 09 Apr 2021, Jakub Ružička wrote:
> I already have bird2 packages built in a testing OBS repo for latest
> Debian, Ubuntu, Fedoras, and CentOS but there are some remaining issues
> with docs generation on older distro versions which I need to address.
> In worst case scenario I will
On Sun, 21 Mar 2021, Ondrej Filip wrote:
> So please test it, run it and write your feedback!
I'm sorry, but it looks like an old mistake [1] slipped in again:
+ ./configure --build=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu
--program-prefix= --disable-dependency-tracking
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021, W Templeton wrote:
> We were close to productionising a network stack around number of sites using
> Bird2.07 as the Routing daemon on Centos 8. In light of the Centos changes
> are now looking for a replacement and would like to confirm what is supported
> by Bird as this
Hello Ondrej,
On Sun, 15 Nov 2020, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> Could you try add 'passive' to the working example to see whether the
> issue is related to one-way establishment, or neighbor-range mode?
yes, adding 'passive' to the working example keeps it still working.
> Also, do you have any
Hello Mark,
On Mon, 16 Nov 2020, Mark Stopka wrote:
> Has anybody looked into that? Fedora "solved it" by simply disabling tests
> for s390x architecture, Debian and Ubuntu don't build Bird for s390x...
...Fedora here! According to my tests, BIRD 2.0.8 should have this fixed
(it's already fixed
Hello,
where is my mistake? Static routing between 2001:db8:1::/64 and
2001:db8:1:a::/64 (configured outside of BIRD) works.
# r1 (2001:db8:1::1/64)
protocol bgp r2 {
local as 42;
neighbor range 2001:db8:1::/50 as 420001; # Never comes up
# neighbor 2001:db8:1:a::1 as
On Wed, 01 Jul 2020, Tim Meusel wrote:
> I'm happily using Bird 2 on multiple CentOS 7 nodes. Sadly I now need to
> rollout BGP to some CentOS 6 boxes :sadface:. I noticed that
> ftp://bird.network.cz/pub/bird/centos/ only contains CentOS 7 packages,
> and EPEL 6 only has Bird 1.6.8. However I
On Tue, 05 May 2020, Fabiano D'Agostino wrote:
> Thank you, but did I install it in the right way?
> I did: rpm -i package.rpm, but in /usrlocal/etc I have no bird.conf.
> I tried to add a new bird.conf but it seems that it isn't recognized.
Yes, "rpm -i package.rpm" is correct. Run "rpm -qvl
Hello Fabiano,
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020, Fabiano D'Agostino wrote:
> It was 'some' errors. When I do 'make' and 'make install' I get this errors:
> https://pastebin.com/DnLjC36T
as Ondrej already mentioned, the GCC 4.4 shipped by CentOS 6 is too old (as
I said before, CentOS 6 reaches end of lifetime
Hello Fabiano,
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020, Fabiano D'Agostino wrote:
> I am using Scientific Linux 6 (RHEL 6) and I was able to install Bird
> 1.3.6, but when I try to install Bird 2.0.7 I get same errors? Why?
what does "same errors" mean exactly? Which errors? Do you have specific
error messages?
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020, Maria Matějka wrote:
> > - Is "define force_roa_table_update = 1582237716;" still needed with BIRD
> >2.0.7 to ensure proper revalidation?
> Yes. The autorevalidation is in code collision with ongoing structural changes
> of route propagation inside BIRD which is needed
On Thu, 27 Feb 2020, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> You need group foo to access /var/lib/foo/, that is part of secondary
> groups for bird user (as reported by 'id') and these secondary groups are
> assigned e.g. when 'su - bird' is used.
>
> But when you run 'bird -u bird -g bird', it only set UID
On Thu, 27 Feb 2020, Chriztoffer Hansen wrote:
> > Is the above under any circumstances valid in any BIRD 1.x version? I did
> > not use BIRD 1.x much, but I thought it is strictly either IPv4 or IPv6...
>
> Correct,
>
> what you fx. can do is:
Okay, while I'm using something similar for BIRD
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 09:25:23PM +0100, Robert Scheck wrote:
> > show route for 209.24.0.3 filtered # Doesn't work
>
> This does not work as expected, because longest-prefix-match code ('for')
> checks just existing routes -
Hello Maria,
as of writing, OpenBSD rpki-client produces an output file for BIRD 1.x
like the following, where IPv4 and IPv6 end up in the same table. For me
this ends with "This is an IPv4 router, therefore IPv6 addresses are not
supported" error on BIRD 1.x all the time...am I overlooking
Good evening,
I wonder if there's a good, full example about ROA with static protocol in
BIRD 2. The following snippet is only for BIRD 1.x, right?
--- %< ---
roa table roa {
roa 1.0.0.0/24 max 24 as 13335;
# […]
}
--- %< ---
Based on various snippets and half examples on the Internet, I've
Good evening,
is there a specific reason why there is a different behaviour between
show route 209.24.0.0/24 filtered # Works
and
show route for 209.24.0.0/24 filtered # Doesn't work
show route for 209.24.0.3 filtered # Doesn't work
in BIRD 2.0.x? Because the following just
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> I think the below patch (against master) ought to fix it? Don't have a
> GCC v10 handy to test with, but at least it doesn't seem to break
> anything on GCC v9 :)
>
> I think the same patch ought to apply against Bird 2.0.7 as well...
Hello folks,
trying to build BIRD 2.0.7 using GCC 10 (which landed in Fedora these days)
leads to a build failure like this:
/usr/bin/ld:
obj/conf/cf-lex.o:/builddir/build/BUILD/bird-2.0.7/./nest/route.h:461: multiple
definition of `rta_dest_names';
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019, Christian K wrote:
> I was wondering if there are plans to provide packages for CentOS 8 that
> was released last month.
> And if so, when?
Is there any specific reason why "dnf install epel-release -y; dnf install
bird -y" isn't good enough? EPEL ships the RPM since end of
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> You have to use -u / -g options. Debian packages do that automatically,
> i don't know about others.
The RPM packages for RHEL/CentOS and Fedora shipped by bird.network.cz
unfortunately don't do that (but the RPM packages shipped directly by
Fedora and
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019, Ondrej Filip wrote:
> we just released two new versions - 1.6.8 and 2.0.6.
Users consuming BIRD RPM packages from Fedora or EPEL (for RHEL/CentOS)
repositories can get updated packages likely tomorrow or so - once they
reached a mirror near to you. Alternatively the builds
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> We plan to release a new version soon with this and other fixes.
That sounds like it makes sense for a package maintainer like me to hold my
breath for a 2.0.6 - which also addresses the CVE from yesterday or so? Or
is soon meant more like "in a
Hello Ondrej,
On Tue, 06 Aug 2019, Ondrej Filip wrote:
> I was able to prepare packages for CentOS 7. You can check
> ftp://bird.network.cz/pub/bird/centos/7/x86_64
aside of that the packages can't be downloaded (likely some permissions
missing), your packages don't align with the Fedora
Hello Ondrej,
On Mon, 05 Aug 2019, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> I think we started to require newer bison (although it should be checked
> by configure and complained there). We aim to be compatible with 5 year
> old systems, but RHEL/CentOS 6 is too old even for that.
while this is a good pointer
Hello all,
I'm seeing the following build failures with BIRD 2.0.5 on RHEL/CentOS 6,
while BIRD 2.0.4 worked fine (just did a BIRD version bump, not more):
--- snipp ---
BUILDSTDERR: obj/conf/cf-parse.y: In function 'cf_parse':
BUILDSTDERR: obj/conf/cf-parse.y:1918: error: unknown field 'asn'
On Fri, 29 Mar 2019, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 01:08:18AM +0100, Robert Scheck wrote:
> > + ./configure --build=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu
> > --host=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu --program-prefix=
> > --disable-dependency-tracking --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/u
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Should we try to consolidate those differences? I'm the co-maintainer of
> the Fedora package :)
Not sure if I created a misunderstanding here, but to consolidate those
differences, upstream's RPM packages would need to inherit our Fedora/EPEL
Hello all,
the portable variant [1] of the recently developed OpenBSD rpki-client [2]
is available, however it only supports OpenBGPD so far.
I wonder if somebody already had a look to it regarding BIRD support. I
know BIRD consumes libssh (for RTRlib [3], but also for the RIPE NCC RPKI
Hello Ondrej,
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> Seems like you compile it with your CFLAGS. There are compiler options
> which we expect there to be: -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-strict-overflow
well, Fedora just exports its own CFLAGS before ./configure. So, if BIRD
depends on some
Hello Maria,
On Sat, 27 Apr 2019, Maria Matejka wrote:
> Could you please:
> 1) run
> $ make clean && make obj/lib/fletcher16_test
> and send us all the warnings you find there
>
> 2) run
> $ obj/lib/fletcher16_test -vvv
> and send us the output to narrow down what is happening there
there we
Hello Ondrej,
hello Maria,
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> The suite of basic unit tests can be run by 'make test'.
that one fails for BIRD 2.0.4 on RHEL/CentOS 7 on ppc64 (big endian) like
this:
[...]
obj/lib/fletcher16_test: t_fletcher16_compute[FAIL]
Hello Maria,
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Maria Matějka wrote:
> We have a test environment (much limited) for running basic configuration
> patterns and a suite of basic unit tests.
is somewhere documented how to run this one? For the very first step, I
would like to run it as part of the RPM builds
Hello Maria,
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Maria Matějka wrote:
> We don't know about any, sorry. It is something we'd like to create and
> maintain. If you are into helping us with this issue, you're very welcome.
is there currently any test suite or are there any tests that you e.g. run
before doing a
Hello all,
is there something like a full (regression) test suite for BIRD that one
could run after building BIRD 2.0.x?
Regards,
Robert
Hello Ondrej,
On Thu, 28 Mar 2019, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> That is unfortuately not possible (only single ASNs or ASN ranges),
> although it is a thing that makes perfect sense, so we should implement
> it.
cool, I'm curious for it :)
> What about: delete(bgp_path, bgp_path.first).first ?
Yes,
Hello folks,
since upgrading from BIRD 2.0.2 to 2.0.4 I'm seeing the message "Missing
broadcast address for interface bond0" on one out of two systems in syslog
e.g. when starting BIRD.
System cr0 with "Missing broadcast address for interface bond0" is:
[root@cr0 ~]# ip a s bond0
10: bond0:
Hello folks,
when trying to use --runstatedir in BIRD 2.0.4, it looks like this here:
+ ./configure --build=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu
--program-prefix= --disable-dependency-tracking --prefix=/usr
--exec-prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/bin --sbindir=/usr/sbin
Hello Maria,
hello Alexander,
first of all, thank you very much for your suggestions.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, Maria Matějka wrote:
> Did you try using BGP path mask? Like
> if (bgp.path ~ [= ? bogon bogon * =]) …
I didn't try this before, but I'm now also not sure how I could get my int
set
Hello folks,
can I somehow import filter only on the 2nd AS number in the AS path? I
know with the snippet below (heavily inspired by bgpfilterguide.nlnog.net),
I can filter on AS numbers that appear somewhere in the AS path, however
this import filter catches by nature also some
Hello Shahan,
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019, Shahan Agha wrote:
> Do we have any updates if there is official Cent OS 7 rpm for bird-2.0.3 or
> bird-2.0.2 to be released any soon?
>
> There was a thread mentioning that packages for bird 2.0 are expected with
> next release.
even we're not talking about
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> I guess this is a typo and it should be:
>
> - "$main::prefix/share/sgml/sgml-iso-entities-8879.1986/catalog:";
> + "$main::prefix/share/sgml/sgml-iso-entities-8879.1986/catalog:" .
>
> to include both paths?
yes, unfortunately it's a typo.
taching both given that my freshly created GitLab account
at gitlab.labs.nic.cz is limited (by default?) to zero forks/projects.
Regards,
Robert
>From 977168abbeb2413ac136d30f18c68481b780fbea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Robert Scheck
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 22:56:06 +0100
Subject: [PA
Hello,
I'm trying to build the documentation of BIRD 2.0.2 on Fedora and RHEL/
CentOS 7 which fails like this:
--- snipp ---
+ /usr/bin/make -j4 -C doc
make: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/bird-2.0.2/doc'
make: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/bird-2.0.2/doc'
make: *** No rule
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017, Logan V. wrote:
> For future BIRD releases, I will continue to maintain the COPR repo if
> necessary so my ansible-bird role[9] will continue to work on EL6/7
> systems. It will be a lot more convenient to maintain the COPR if I
> can source EL6 and EL7 builds directly from
On Tue, 30 May 2017, Martin Huněk wrote:
> As for the EPEL repository and outdated version there, there is an bug report
> [1] for updating from the 1.4.5 to 1.6.3. However there is the requirement of
> 100% forward compatibility of configuration. If it fulfills that, it would be
> great to try
55 matches
Mail list logo
