Henry Bonath(he...@thebonaths.com) on 2018.10.27 19:21:15 -0400: > Claudio - > > One use case where I personally ran into this need in the past is in an > MPLS PE-CE where OSPF is running between the Provider and Customer. (L3VPN) > One would want to redistribute the Customers OSPF routes into BGP as VPNv4 > prefixes into the customers VRF in the provider network. > > We typically run Cisco on our CPE's and do exactly this with our customers, > with a redistribute ospf statement under "address-family vpnv4 vrf > cusomerVRF" > I'd *love* to be able to do the same with OpenBSD and not have to fork out > Cisco money at the customer premise.
This should already be possible (as described my mail) with network inet priority 32 > That being said, EIGRPD would also benefit here, as I have customers that > run EIGRP and want to use that on their CE's. same there, use priority 28 /Benno > Thanks for everything that you do, and keep up the great work! > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 8:37 AM Claudio Jeker <cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com> > wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 02:48:31PM +0300, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > > > On 15.10.18 12:58, Sebastian Benoit wrote: > > > > open...@kene.nu(open...@kene.nu) on 2018.10.15 11:05:41 +0200: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > I am trying to get bgpd and ospfd play nicely with route > > redistribution. > > > > > > > > > > So far the only way I have found that suits my need is to use > > > > > bgpd.conf network statements and rtlabels. > > > > > > > > > > So, to make ospfd learn route from bgpd I use rtlabels. So in > > bgpd.conf: > > > > > match from <neighbor> set rtlabel from_bgpd > > > > > > > > > > And in ospfd.conf: > > > > > redistribute rtlabel from_bgpd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So far so good. But the other way around, to bake bgpd learn from > > > > > ospfd it becomes a bit more tedious. The only way I have found to > > make > > > > > bgpd announce ospf originated routes (to its bgp peers) is via > > network > > > > > statements in bgpd.conf. These network statements are not conditional > > > > > on the availability of such a route in ospf though so they are not > > > > > very dynamic anymore. > > > > > > > > > > I understand that it according to standard > > > > > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1364) should be something that is > > > > > explicit for type 1 and 2 LSAs. > > > > > > > > > > What is the recommended way to achieve dynamic explicit route > > > > > redistribution in both directions? > > > > Network statements are the correct way. > > > > > > > > You can use > > > > > > > > network (inet|inet6) priority ... > > > > network (inet|inet6) rtlabel ... > > > > > > > > So with > > > > > > > > network inet priority 32 > > > > > > > > you should be able to redistribute all ospf routes into bgp. > > > > > > > > If this does not help, please explain your problem further (and > > include your > > > > config). > > > > > > > > (Note that you should run OpenBSD 6.4 (just use the latest snapshot) > > for > > > > this as there was at least a bugfix for route-labels.) > > > wouldn't it be nice to have rtlabels in ospf(6)d? I would even prefer > > > setting them per area, or per interface where a route was learned. > > > just wondering why is it not implemented yet. is that too complex > > change? or > > > just not necessary? > > > > > > > Until now there has not been a need for this. In general and probably best > > common practice is to not mix BGP and OSPF. Instead OSPF is building the > > underlaying network to run BGP on top of. This is why benno@ was asking > > for the use case. > > > > By the way, because of the nature of OSPF it does not make sense to tag > > routes by interface, doing it by area could be an option but that comes > > with some edge cases that need further inspection. > > > > -- > > :wq Claudio > > > > > --
