On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:43 , Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 10:09:22AM +0200, Wolfgang Hennerbichler wrote:
>> Great news. Actually I think every cisco router threw up, JunOS didn't seem
>> to care (I think).
>> BTW: What happens if I do a bgp_community.delete ((1234,1234)) if th
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 10:09:22AM +0200, Wolfgang Hennerbichler wrote:
> Great news. Actually I think every cisco router threw up, JunOS didn't seem
> to care (I think).
> BTW: What happens if I do a bgp_community.delete ((1234,1234)) if the
> community doesn't exist?
It does nothing (with th
On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:08 , Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> Hello.
Hi,
> Thank you for the bug report.
No problem.
> The RFC 1997 does not explicitly forbid
> empty community attribute and we assumed that it is valid. But if
> some Cisco routers don't like it reasonable to not generate such
> attrib
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:44:11PM +0200, Wolfgang Hennerbichler wrote:
> Allright, reply to myself:
>
> This seems to be a bug in BIRD.
> What I actually added was a rule that certain communities should be deleted:
> if ((1120,1)) ~ bgp_community then bgp_community.delete((1120,1));
>
> this
Allright, reply to myself:
This seems to be a bug in BIRD.
What I actually added was a rule that certain communities should be deleted:
if ((1120,1)) ~ bgp_community then bgp_community.delete((1120,1));
this actually seemed to delete the only community attached to a certain prefix,
which led
Hi BIRD-Users,
I just got into a situation here...
I reconfigured my bird (with some new filter rules on BGP), but now some
peerings don't come up anymore:
bird> show protocols R8596x130
name prototablestate since info
R8596x130 BGP T8596x130 start 12:03 Idle
