08.02.2021, 20:10, "Marek Zarychta" <zarych...@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl>:
> W dniu 08.02.2021 o 19:32, Alexander V. Chernikov pisze:
>> 08.02.2021, 14:33, "Marek Zarychta" <zarych...@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl>:
>>> W dniu 08.02.2021 o 13:10, mike tancsa pisze:
>>>> I have been setting up some tests to see if
>>>>
>>>> option FIB_ALGO and dpdk_lpm4.ko
>>>>
>>>> will help with my pkt forwarding needs and large routing tables. So far
>>>> so good. But one thing I noticed, is that its very chatty to dmesg.
>>>> eg
>>>> alloc_nhgrp: new mpath group: num_nhops: 2
>>>> compile_nhgrp: O: 2/2
>>>> compile_nhgrp: OO[0]: 1/1 curr=1 slot_idx=0
>>>> compile_nhgrp: OO[1]: 0/0 curr=1 slot_idx=1
>>>> alloc_nhgrp: new mpath group: num_nhops: 2
>>>> compile_nhgrp: O: 2/2
>>>> compile_nhgrp: OO[0]: 1/1 curr=1 slot_idx=0
>>>> compile_nhgrp: OO[1]: 0/0 curr=1 slot_idx=1
>>>> alloc_nhgrp: new mpath group: num_nhops: 2
>>>> compile_nhgrp: O: 2/2
>>>> compile_nhgrp: OO[0]: 1/1 curr=1 slot_idx=0
>>>> compile_nhgrp: OO[1]: 0/0 curr=1 slot_idx=1
>>>>
>>>> are these debugging messages that forgot to be turned off ? What do they
>>>> mean ?
>>>> Thanks for this work!
>>>>
>>>> 13.0-STABLE #11 stable/13-cc1352c1f-dirty
>>>
>>> Thank you for sharing this Mike. Could you please reveal us how do you
>>> feed your routing tables? Is net/bird{,2} or net/frr7 involved? Any
>>> problems or hints to make the routing daemon working with new routing
>>> stack?
>> Non-multipath should work as before, multipath works for quagga/frr but
>> needs some patches for bird.
>
> Thank you for the clarification, so is with anything but quagga or frr
> the sysctl setting net.route.multipath=0 obligatory now?
>>> The new routing stack looks very promising, please let me also give this
>>> way some appreciations to melifaro@ and other people who worked on it.
>>>
>>> I was also trying to test it with legacy net/bird and multiple fib
>>> tables, but I was early hit by: "KRT: Error sending route x.x.x.x/y to
>>> kernel: Operation not supported"
>> Any chance you could clarify what are these routes? "Operation not
>> supported" looks a bit weird, it shouln't happen.
>>> Setting net.add_net.add_addr_allfibs=1addr_allfibs=1 changed it a bit,
>>> but still some blackhole /32 routes seem to get rejected.
>> Just "blackhole" route in the bird config? /32 or all?
>
> I used for tests the feed from Peter Hessler's OpenBSD spam trapping
> project[1]. On FreeBSD 11.4 I see these routes in net/bird as
> blackholed, for example:
> x.x.x.x/32 blackhole [bgp_spamd 20:20:43 from y.y.y.y] * (100) [ASzzzz]
> They work the same was as routes added by route(8) with option "-blackhole"
>
> With new routing stack, these routes are rejected with the message
> above. Now in net/bird, they appear like the example below and import to
> the fib (fib number is not equal to 0 in this case) is blocked:
> x.x.x.x/32 unreachable [SPAM 19:58:18 from y.y.y.y] ! (100/-) [ASzzzz]
Does the change in https://reviews.freebsd.org/D28549 fix bird?
>
> Probably it all should be tested in normal peering, but my initial test
> was performed on the old lab setup where multiple fibs and policy
> routing[2] were involved. The config was loosely based on the example by
> Ondrej Filip from the[2].
>
> Once again thank you for implementing all these improvements into
> FreeBSD routing stack and please don't get me wrong, I am just testing
> it a bit before migration from 11.4-STABLE, but not complaining about
> anything.
No problem! Thank you for the report. It's really nice it's been caught before
the release.
>
> [1] http://rs.bgp-spamd.net/client/index.html
> [2] https://gitlab.nic.cz/labs/bird/-/wikis/Policy_routing
>
> --
> Marek Zarychta
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
