Hi guys,
we use two machines running BIRD v. 1.3.8 as a bgp route-server on our
IXP peering lan, and I noticed an apparently strange behavior: we had to
reload the switch module on which our route server is connected, but
after that, all v4 neighbors were showing "Error: neighbor lost", while
Hello list,
as per the subject, I have a specific peer whose BGP session is not
stable. It goes from Established to Idle with this error from the birdc
prompt: "Received: No supported AFI/SAFI".
The logfile says:
03-05-2012 22:09:47 : State changed to up
03-05-2012 22:09:50 : Received: Malf
Stefan Jakob wrote:
Am 23.02.12 13:17, schrieb Simone Morandini:
Any clue on what could be the cause?
Can you please check, if your route for the peering lan is still on your
interface?
do you mean if the route-servers lost connectivity towards the peering lan?
After stopping
Hi all,
I'm facing a weird problem: we run BIRD with identical configuration on
2 different servers, both connected on the same peering lan.
We had "Error: Neighbor lost" error message for all the IPv6 bgp
speakers, on both machines, while the v4 deamon had no problems.
Issuing a "kill -s HUP
Hi guys,
one question (again) on communities: consider the following filtering
function, applied on pipe protocols (no filtering on bgp protocol):
function bgp_out(int peeras)
{
if !(source = RTS_BGP) then return false;
if (0, peeras) ~ bgp_community then return false;
Hi Stefan,
show route all where (0,65333) ~ bgp_community
thanks for the quick reply.. So if I'm not getting any output with this
command, I should deduce that the member is not actually sending the
community to the RS, right?
To be more, specific, this member doesn't want to advertise i
Hi all,
I have a couple of basic questions regarding communities:
- is the "interpret communities switch" command meant only for
well-known communities or for any community sent to the RS?
- how can I see from birdc if a member is sending a specific community
to the RS? "sh route where (()) ~
Hi all,
did you check manually that these networks would really pass all your
filters (as-path, prefix, whatever you are applying).
thanks for the suggestion, the problem was exactly this: I was
mistakenly building the configuration file, so the networks listed there
were similar but diff
Hi all,
In the scenario where filters was applied on pipes, not on BGP
protocols,
all received routes can be viewed via CLI:
show route protocol table .
apologies for "upping" my thread, but I'd like to solve this issue...
With the above suggested command, "show route protocol table
",
Mikhail A. Grishin wrote:
In the scenario where filters was applied on pipes, not on BGP protocols,
all received routes can be viewed via CLI:
show route protocol table .
thanks Mikhail, using the command you suggested I actually see the
networks, so it looks like they are not propagat
Hi all,
a (hopefully) quick question: one of our peer says it is announcing a
set of network to the route server, but there routes do not actually
appear to be there...
If I issue a "sh route protocol " the list is empty, as well as if
I issue "sh route where bgp_path.first=".
Is there a way t
Hi all,
I've just configured a new peer on our IPv6 implementation of BIRD and,
as per the subject, I'm receiving the following error with "sh protocols":
BGP T_ start 18:05 Idle
Received: Required capability missing
Last lines of logfile repeat the following:
13-12
Hi bird-users,
I'm having a problem with the latest member I've connected to the route
server.
I followed the same procedure as the others (generating the config file
with a script), but although the session is actually established, he
doesn't receive any of the routes announced on the route s
Hi Ondrej,
this is a known bug. It is fixed differently in current git
repository, but you can for example use my hot fix from Fedora RPMs.
(Attached).
thanks for the patch, after that it compiled regularly (of course!).
Plus, I see that version 1.2.3 compiles fine as well... Thanks!
Regards
Hi all,
I'd like to set up an IPv6 instance of BIRD for our members, but I'm
having some troubles with "make".
When I issue "./configure --enable-ipv6" everything goes fine, but the
subsequent "make" at a certain poing gives these errors:
[...]
gcc -I../ -I../.. -g -O2 -Wall -Wstrict-prototyp
Hi Ondrej,
If you attach the no-export community in the pipe export filter, then it
is here before the export to the BGP protocol (MYPEER), therefore it
wouldn't be exported unless the protocol has 'interpret communities no'
set. If the BGP protocol has 'interpret communities no' set, it should
Hi Arnold,
actually I wouldn't do resp. interprete ist that way. If customer sets
no-export, then simply do not export that prefix.
yes, what I didn't mention is that I've been asked to strip the
no-export and then re-attach it...
If customer really wants to have no-export set to the o
Hi all,
I need your help to understand what I'm missing...
One of the rs clients sends a route with no-export community, so I have
to strip it on ingress and re-attach it on egress. I thought I have two
alternatives: using "interpret community no" in the bgp table of the
peer, or playing with
Dear all,
is it possible to "split" BIRD and use the same physical machine as a
route server on two separate LANs? If yes, how can I do it?
If feasible, is it something that is discouraged?
Thanks,
Simone.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and
Hi all,
is it possible to send a specific community from a given RS participant
to another RS partecipant?
Thanks,
Simone.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Configure
no bgp enforce-first-as
on the Cisco sitting at the other side. Or prepend your own AS number,
Thanks Arnold!
Using "no bgp enforce-first-as" the session came up...
Simone.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to
Hi all,
I've just started playing around with BIRD: I configured a server with
v. 1.2.1
Simple configuration, just to test, with 2 routers: one is ours, the
other is a member's router.
From what I see, the session between the member and the RS is ok, while
the session between our router and th
22 matches
Mail list logo
