Hi Claudio,
Am 29.06.23 um 09:01 schrieb Claudio Jeker:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 08:53:05AM +0200, Jörg Streckfuß wrote:
Hi list,
here is a small addition. Adding and deleting the route to and from routing
table on the command line works as expected:
fw1 # route add 2001:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx::4/128 2001:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx::4 -label
geo_service
add host 2001:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx::4/128: gateway 2001:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx::4
fw# route -n show -inet6 | grep 2001:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx::4
2001:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx::4 52:01:8d:e4:fd:63 UHLch
1 23015 - 3 vlan18
2001:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx::4 2001:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx::4 UGHS
0 0 - 8 vlan18
fw1 # route del 2001:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx::4/128 2001:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx::4 -label
geo_service
del host 2001:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx::4/128: gateway 2001:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx::4
fw1# route -n show -inet6 | grep 2001:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx::4
2001:638:dfce:3000::4 52:01:8d:e4:fd:63 UHLc 0
23015 - 3 vlan18
Why can't relayd add the route to the table and what does the following log
concretely mean:
<snip>
pfe_route: failed to add gateway 2001:638:dfce:3000::4: 22 Invalid argument
<snap>
Run route -n monitor will give you more insights at what is sent to the
kernel. At least unless the route message is so mangled that the kernel
fails to parse it.
This is interesting. I ran route -n monitor and run relayd but it says
nothing. No output at all.
Also xxxx all IPs does not help to understand what is going on.
I will rebuild my setup to 2001:db adresses so I can post the full ipv6
address. Sorry this is because of a company policy.
Why do you add /128 route with the same IP as the gateway? That just makes
no sense.
The idea is to check the availability of a service and announce the ip
address to a bgp peer only if the service is up. I know it looks weird
but for ipv4 it works. My naive assumption was to simply adopt it to IPv6.
Is there a more elegant way to do this?
Regards Joerg
