>> (There's also the PMTUD problem described in RFC 9229 Section 3.)
> Juliusz, do you, or any one else, have info on:
> How does ${vendor} behave when reverse path filters are enabled?
I was under the impression that some kinds of ICMP pakets are not subject
to RPF. See RFC 4890 Section 4.3.1.
On 14.02.23 22:08, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> (There's also the PMTUD problem described in RFC 9229 Section 3.)
Hey,
Juliusz, do you, or any one else, have info on:
How does ${vendor} behave when reverse path filters are enabled?
I did some "research" aka an afternoon of web-search on that
> btw, there is one question that i noticed. If an Update is ignored for
> semantic reasons (e.g. update with valid metric, but missing next hop or
> router id), should it update last prefix with P-flag?
Such a packet would be incorrect. What to do in presence of an incorrect
packet is left to
> I just though that the default value for the option is enabled, but
> perhaps it should be enabled only if such routes are supported by
> platform code (i.e. enabled on Linux, but disabled on BSD, as we do
> not support such routes on BSD).
IMHO, it should not be possible to enable v4-via-v6
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 06:25:33PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > 1) Changed the name of the option to 'extended next hop', for consistency
> > with BGP (and in the future also with other protocols). As the option is
> > enabled by default, the name likely does not matter that much.
>
> I
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 06:04:33PM +0100, Andreas Rammhold wrote:
> > Please check it, if it is acceptable for you, i will merge it to the master
> > branch.
>
> These all sound fine. I've run it through my bird<->bird<->babeld<->babeld
> test network and it passed.
>
> The changes look fine if
> 1) Changed the name of the option to 'extended next hop', for consistency
> with BGP (and in the future also with other protocols). As the option is
> enabled by default, the name likely does not matter that much.
I rather like v4-via-v6, which succintly and clearly states what it is
about.
Ondrej Zajicek writes:
Hi,
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 03:57:47PM +0100, Andreas Rammhold wrote:
>> Any chance you could give this a look yet?
>
> Hi
>
> Finally i got to process the patch and prepare it for merging.
> I did some changes, mainly:
>
> 1) Changed the name of the option to 'extended
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 03:57:47PM +0100, Andreas Rammhold wrote:
> Any chance you could give this a look yet?
Hi
Finally i got to process the patch and prepare it for merging.
I did some changes, mainly:
1) Changed the name of the option to 'extended next hop', for consistency
with BGP (and in
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 05:59:25PM +0100, Martin Weinelt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for the patch. I'm running it on a few machines and it simplifies
> address management significantly, since it allows us to deallocate lots of
> address pairs from all tunnel interfaces.
>
> Want to repeat the
On 11.01.23 17:16, Ondrej Zajicek via Bird-users wrote:
Hi
Sorry, we received some reports about an important bug in 2.0.11, we are
now working on 2.0.12 with several bugfixes (hopefully this week), after
that i will check your patch.
Hi,
thanks for the patch. I'm running it on a few
11 matches
Mail list logo
