Re: Bug in bfd implementation: Wrong TTL on bfd control packets (was: Re: BFD sessions with FFR (VyOS) won't establish)

2024-01-20 Thread netravnen+birdlist
https://docs.frrouting.org/en/stable-9.1/bfd.html#clicmd-minimum-ttl-1-254 Reads frr 9.1 enforces a min ttl of 254 if not otherwise specified. VyOS 1.3 uses frr 8.5.1 afair. https://docs.frrouting.org/en/stable-8.5/bfd.html#clicmd-minimum-ttl-1-254 You could opt for tweaking the min ttl on the

Re: Bug in bfd implementation: Wrong TTL on bfd control packets (was: Re: BFD sessions with FFR (VyOS) won't establish)

2024-01-20 Thread Alexander Zubkov via Bird-users
Hi Lukas, Actually I saw support for TTL security in BFD code: https://gitlab.nic.cz/labs/bird/-/blob/master/proto/bfd/packets.c#L496 And I see in your config example that you use multihop BFD, but RFC you refer is talking about single-hop BFD usage. So it does not seem like a bug here. Maybe the

Dynamic routing for wireguard tunnels

2024-01-20 Thread Julian Zielke
Hi, I have an issue with two machines connected via GRE exchanging routes via OSPF. Both server have wireguard tunnels to the same external endpoints, so a request from an endpoint may come in through tunnel 1 to server A, forwarded to wan and the reply may enter through server B and tunnel 2 b