Re: Help with multiple routing tables.

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 05:25:33PM -0600, Grant Taylor wrote: > One for each kernel routing table (253 & 254) and the view that RIP has. > > I think that I will need to import from the default_rib (253) into RIP -and- > filter said default from RIP so that it doesn't get into the main_rib (254).

Re: bird2: channel down in direct protocol

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 03:08:39PM +0200, Alarig Le Lay wrote: > On mar. 21 août 15:02:06 2018, Ondrej Zajicek wrote: > > If you restart the protocol does the cahnnel became up? If you restart > > BIRD will the channel be started as down or up? > > The channel is up a

Re: BGP resolvable issue

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 01:43:58AM +, Arvin Gan wrote: > Ping, anyone known it ?:) > > Thanks > Arvin > > From: Arvin Gan > Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 5:42 PM > To: bird-users@network.cz > Subject: BGP resolvable issue > > Hi all, >In RFC4271, If the NEXT_HOP attribute of a BGP

Re: bird2: channel down in direct protocol

On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 06:14:52PM +0200, Alarig Le Lay wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to import interfaces routes in my bird instance, so I wrote > this into my configuration: > > protocol direct { > ipv6; > } > > But the channel is down when I look thought birdc: > > bird> show

Re: Fwd: Opaque pipe in bird 2.0?

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 03:41:30PM +0200, Piotr Wydrych wrote: > Bumping up - even if there is no good answer to my question, I think that > the documentation should be fixed :-) Hi Forgot to answer, sorry. The opaque mode was removed, it has some inherent problems and limited applicability. We

Re: route server appears to be selecting preferred routes and not all routes

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 02:59:55PM -0700, Stephen Fromm wrote: > We are running bird as a route server to support a small IX. The > challenge we are having is that it appears that bird is selecting a > preferred route from what is advertised to the route servers and then > advertising back out

Re: ospf between bird (accel pppoe server) and mikrotik

On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 01:37:05PM -0300, Alexandrino Neto wrote: > Hi guys, I'm using bird on a pppoe server (accel) connected directly to a > mikrotik and I need ospf between them to advertise the prefixes of the > pppoe clients. The accel server is already receiving the mikrotik routes >

Re: BFD socket bind error upon reboot

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:23:33AM +0200, J. Kendzorra wrote: > Hi, > > > Generally, BIRD should not try to use an address before it notices that > > the address is available/active. If BIRD tries to bind the socket before > > that, then it is a bug. > > This seems to be a common pattern for

Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] babel: Add HMAC support

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 07:40:02PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > > IMHO the draft describes this order: > > > > - parse trailer > > - preparse for PC and index > > - verify authentication (HMAC and PC/index) > > - regular parse and processing > > > > You are doing > > > > - parse trailer

Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] babel: Add HMAC support

Hi Finally got to finish the review. The code looks OK, comments below. The getrandom() issue and issue with fixed length of indexes and so on was already mentioned before. I am OK with reasonable fixed upper bound, but the code should be able to handle received shorter ones. I have an issue

Re: BFD socket bind error upon reboot

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:23:56PM +0200, J. Kendzorra wrote: > Hi, > > upon a reboot of a system running BFD I recently noticed BFD breaking > with error "Cannot assign requested address" once the system came back. > Restarting the BFD protocol in question solved the problem. > Hence, apparently

Re: Strange behavior, cannot reach 4th hop

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 10:06:19AM +, TI2015: Kulesza, Dawid wrote: > Hello, > > few days ago I struggled with bird configuration over openvpn. It's > working now. I can see, that every host has proper routes and with birdc > show ospf topology I can see, that every router sees everyone else.

Re: Arista Switch BFD issue - custom port

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 03:14:10PM +0200, Jakub Nowacki wrote: > Hi, > > I'm running BIRD on Arista which allows access to Linux bash. I'm having > issue with running multihop BFD session on it and I believe it's related to > port being already binded. > > > bash-4.3# netstat -tulpen | grep 4784

Re: Looking for a complete examples of BIRD as a BGP Router

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 01:53:15PM -0300, Felipe N. Oliva wrote: > Hello List! > > I'm new here, let me explain a little about me. I've been using FreeBSD + > OpenBGPd for a long time as a BGP Router, but there are a lot of problems > with de port, because it is very old(just in FreeBSD, okay?).

Re: IPv6 next-hop with incorrect link-local address received

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 02:43:18PM +0200, Sebastian Neuner wrote: > > And you can use: > > > > bgp_next_hop = bgp_next_hop; > > This actually sets the right next-hop, but for some reason it sets the > route to the wrong interface (i.e. to the Cisco). That is because import filter is processed

Re: IPv6 next-hop with incorrect link-local address received

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 12:35:48PM +0200, Sebastian Neuner wrote: > Hi all, > > So now the next-hop in the BGP update looks like this: > > > Next hop network address (32 bytes) > >Next Hop: ::c02::28 > >Next Hop: fe80::28a:96ff:fecc:c10 > > The GUA next-hop is correct and

Re: bird 2 and vpn4 mpls

On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 11:34:16AM -0500, Chris Herdt wrote: > Following the example at https://github.com/BIRD/bird/ > blob/v2.0.2/doc/bird.conf.example2, I set up a simple bird config (see > below). > > It is working, but I am not certain what the '---' in the table column of > the output of

Re: Bird 2 and device routes switch in kernel configuration section

On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 03:24:46PM +0200, Julien Dessaux wrote: > Hello, > > I have found something odd will try testing bird 2 with some of my > configurations. It seems that the "device routes on" in the kernel > configuration section doesn't exist anymore. The documentation still > references

Re: question

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 04:09:51PM +0430, Farhadtoosky wrote: > Hi, > > I'm using the Bird for a project and I need to use command line interface > such as Cisco router for OSPF config. Bird and birdc using .conf file for > configuration. Are there any way for config with CLI? How enable >

Re: Filtering Flowspec Routes from/to BGP Peer

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 03:29:27PM +0200, Tim Weippert wrote: > Hi List, > > i currently search some informations of what filtering is possible in Bird on > Flowspec (flow4/flow6) routes. As i currently understand is, that the BGP > Common Fields (Community, AS_Path, etc.) is accesible and

Re: FreeBSD 11 and mixed BGP password issues?

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 02:12:14PM -0500, Thomas Johnson wrote: > If my limited understanding of the BIRD code is correct, when the > configuration of a BGP protocol instance specifies a password, the > TCP_MD5SIG option is set on the listen socket (and appropriate connect > sockets). Because of

Re: After update bird 1.6.3->1.6.4 my filter don't working

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:59:42PM +0300, Владислав Гришин wrote: > After update bird not announce prefixes with the same filter in config Hi, works for me (with 1.6.4, your filter and two test routes): BIRD 1.6.4 ready. bird> show route preexport bgp1 10.1.10.0/24 via 10.1.1.10 on ve0

Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] babel: Add HMAC support

On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 01:21:40AM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Martin Mares writes: > > > Hi Toke, > > > > just a random thought: > > > >> + getrandom(n->hmac_nonce, BABEL_HMAC_NONCE_LEN, 0); > > > > I think we cannot rely on getrandom() being available on all systems. > > It

Re: BIRD - 6PE functionality support

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 06:24:19PM +, Thiruvazhiyan Lakshmanan wrote: > Hi, > We are looking for using BIRD in our VM for BGP 3107 functionality with > 6PE support. Basically BIRD should peer with peering router with > ipv6-label-unicast family and advertise its v6 loopback address with the >

Re: [PATCH] babel: Check TLV framing before dereferencing tlv->type

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:56:40PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen Hi I think that the current position is correct and the patch is not - the follow-up code ('The end of the common TLV header') checks for full 2-byte TLV header, while BABEL_TLV_PAD1

Re: route server community evaluation examples - bug and fix

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 06:35:24PM +, Chris Caputo wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jan 2018, Chris Caputo wrote: > > To see the communities supported by the SIX route servers, refer to: > > > > https://www.seattleix.net/route-servers#communities > > > > Below is how we do it with bird 1.6.3. Not sure

Re: route withdrawals are not sent upon protocol removal

On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 07:08:06PM +0100, Thomás S. Bregolin wrote: > Hello Ondrej, > > I've been going through the BIRD source recently and as I sat down to take > a stab at a patch for this withdrawal thing I bumped into this while going > through nest/rt-table.c: > >

Re: BIRD - Config Support for RFC 3107 - Carrying Label Information in BGP

d with local next hop via MPLS-BGP. Compile BIRD with it. -- Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santi...@crfreenet.org) OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net) "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so." com

Re: MP_UNREACH_NLRI RFC8277 compatibility

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 04:26:46PM +0300, Vadim Fedorenko wrote: > Hi! > According to RFC 8277, NLRI for withdrawal contains 3 fields: Length, > Compatibility and Prefix. > "Upon transmission, the Compatibility field SHOULD be set to 0x80.Upon > reception, the value of the Compatibility field

Re: BIRD 2.x and arrays

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 04:36:44PM +0200, Carlo Rengo wrote: > Using "[ 192.168.60.0/24+ ]” works, however from the documentation I read the > following regarding the `include` operator: > > Special operators include (~, !~) for "is (not) element of a set" > operation - it can be used on

Re: BIRD 2.x and arrays

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 04:11:17PM +0200, Carlo Rengo wrote: > My bad, I’ve posted the log outputs in the opposite order. The first output > is referred to the second configuration (the one that makes us of the array). Hi, it works like it worked in 1.6.x branch. Prefix set [ 192.168.60.0/24 ]

Re: BGP hostentry update

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:25:49AM +, Arvin Gan wrote: > Hi All, > When I using bird 2.0.2 version ,I have an issue route include > "unreachable", but I think this application is reasonable , anyone can help > me ? > /* Recursive route should not depend on another recursive route

Re: BGP channel add/remove

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 01:28:08PM +0200, Martin Mares wrote: > Hi, > > > Perhaps we should trigger restart when BGP channels are added/removed > > and keep current behavior for 'configure soft'. > > yes, please. "configure" was always intended to switch to a new > configuration, even in cases

Re: BGP channel add/remove

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:43:59AM +, Arvin Gan wrote: > Hi Ondrej, >Thanks for your response. >As my code investigated, the function proto_configure_channel() always > return value "1" , that mean the same is true in function bgp_reconfigure(), > line 917 of proto.c will ignore

Re: BGP channel add/remove

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 07:23:09AM +, Arvin Gan wrote: > Hi All, > After investigate the codes for command "configure", found that when > delete/add channel, the function proto_configure_channel() always return > value "1" , that mean the same is true in function bgp_reconfigure(),

Re: Flowspec Extended communities

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 08:23:37PM +0200, Tim Weippert wrote: > Hi List, > > i do some testing on Bird as FlowSpec Controller. > ... > With this approach i can successfully drop all flow4 entries on a > cisco ASR 1001-X. But how would i add several flow routes to the flow > table and deside

Re: running two bird daemons which listen on loopback IP

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 05:34:06PM +0200, Pavlos Parissis wrote: > Hi, > > For testing purposes I want to run two bird instances which listen on two > different IPs. Those IP > addresses are assigned to loopback interface(Linux box). I have configured > BGP but each daemon is > waiting the

Re: BIRD - Config Support for RFC 3107 - Carrying Label Information in BGP

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 02:27:52PM +, Thiruvazhiyan Lakshmanan wrote: > Thanks for your reply. > > When I tried to add " ip route add 192.168.1.0/24 encap mpls 100 via inet > 10.10.101.1" I get "Error: either "to" is duplicate, or "encap" is a garbage." > > root@ubuntu4-4-VM1:/proc/sys/net#

Re: BIRD - Config Support for RFC 3107 - Carrying Label Information in BGP

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 06:13:57PM +, Thiruvazhiyan Lakshmanan wrote: > Thanks Ondrej, > > With your suggested changes, I notice both Kernel and BGP uses single > table (master4) and both have the routes. However, the routes shown in > the bird has labels attached to them, the routes shown in

Re: BIRD - Config Support for RFC 3107 - Carrying Label Information in BGP

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 09:33:56PM +, Thiruvazhiyan Lakshmanan wrote: > Hi Ondrej, > > Thanks for your reply. I have upgraded the kernel on my VM and now I am > getting the 3107 routes in the mtab4 table in the bird. But the routes are > not programed to mpls Kernel table. Maybe I am

Re: Route Reflector issue

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 01:59:47PM +0200, Ondrej Zajicek wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 08:00:50AM +0530, knet solutions wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am implementing this below topology (BGP IGP), > > > > > > R1R2-

Re: Route Reflector issue

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 08:00:50AM +0530, knet solutions wrote: > Hi, > > I am implementing this below topology (BGP IGP), > > > R1R2--R3 > (192.168.2.2) 192.168.2.1/1.1 192.168.1.2 > > Here

Re: BGP keepalive_time

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 01:54:07AM +, Arvin Gan wrote: > Hi all, > > When I used bird, found a question that BGP session received OPEN > message, hold_time is updated with min(config_hold_time, peer_hold_time), > but keepalive_time is not updated if keepalive_time is not zero, that >

Re: BIRD - Config Support for RFC 3107 - Carrying Label Information in BGP

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 04:21:10PM +, Thiruvazhiyan Lakshmanan wrote: > Hi Ondrej, > Thanks for your reply. The link which is provided in your emails > details about the static MPLS route entry to the MPLS route table. When > we have our VM with the latest kernel, whether BIRD can program the

Re: Babel + IPv4 = parse error

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 02:48:45PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Ondrej Zajicek writes: > > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:22:17AM +0200, Julian Schuh wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> for a current project I’m planning on using Babel as a lightwe

Re: Babel + IPv4 = parse error

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:22:17AM +0200, Julian Schuh wrote: > Hi all, > > for a current project I’m planning on using Babel as a lightweight, > dual-stack routing protocol for a couple of simple tasks. For a proof of > concept I’ve been using BIRD, and a plan to continue using BIRD at least

Re: BIRD - Config Support for RFC 3107 - Carrying Label Information in BGP

On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 04:03:41PM +, Thiruvazhiyan Lakshmanan wrote: > Hi Ondrej, > Thanks for your reply. What is the recommended linux kernel verison for mpls > if BIRD acts as a PE. > > We have VM with Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server 7.3 (Maipo) > Kernel 3.10.0-693.2.2.el7.x86_64 on an

Re: route withdrawals are not sent upon protocol removal

On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 03:49:57PM +0100, Thomás S. Bregolin wrote: > I see. It's not BIRD on the other side. In this instance I'm using a QFX > with JUNOS 15. But I believe I've seen the issue with Cisco and Arista > routers, too. Will have to confirm, though. > > I have this in neighboor caps:

Re: route withdrawals are not sent upon protocol removal

On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 03:17:37PM +0100, Thomás S. Bregolin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:25 PM, Ondrej Zajicek > wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 01:33:53PM +0100, Thomás S. Bregolin wrote: > > [...] > > > I've attached a modified version of th

Re: dependent ospf areas

On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 09:41:18PM +0500, Илья Шипицин wrote: > hello, > > we use BIRD with 2 ospf areas: external and internal. > can someone give an advice how to implement dependent filters? > > i.e. "if there are no neighbors on internal, so do not export anything on > external"? > > and

Re: route withdrawals are not sent upon protocol removal

On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 01:33:53PM +0100, Thomás S. Bregolin wrote: > Hello, > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Thomás S. Bregolin > wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Jan Maria Matejka > > wrote: > > > >> Could you please try the attached script or try to create some reproducer

Re: BIRD router/route server functions

On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 09:29:08AM +, Rae Ho (ITSC) wrote: > Dear Quan Zhou, Thanks. Rae Hi Your setup looks OK. You could use tcpdump on ens160 to see if there are BGP connection attempts in both directions. Also, is there anything interesting in BIRD logs? You should also upgrade BIRD,

Re: route withdrawals are not sent upon protocol removal

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 03:42:12PM +0100, Thomás S. Bregolin wrote: > Hello, > > > bird (all versions) does not send BGP route withdrawals when a protocol is > removed, only when the filter changes or the protocol is disabled. Is this > intentional? If not, could it be a configurable option to

Re: BGP origin attribute

On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 09:37:56AM +0200, Olivier Benghozi wrote: > > > Le 1 juin 2018 à 05:05, Arvin Gan a écrit : > > > > I also notice the explanation from Cisco is all redistributed route are > > INCOMPLETE. What's your opinion ? That it does nor really matter. > And on Juniper side,

Re: BGP origin attribute

On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 09:39:04AM +0200, Olivier Benghozi wrote: > But as a mandatory attribute, how can it be conceptually allowed to remove > this attribute between BGP and BGP ? Most attributes can be defined and undefined in configurable filters, regardless of their meaning. After export

Re: BGP origin attribute

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 03:14:40AM +, Arvin Gan wrote: > Hi All, > I notice the origin attribute in function bgp_update_attrs , if route > source is BGP, I think it should set as ORIGIN_IGP, not INCOMPLETE, > according to RFC or Cisco device . It seems there is mistake on Line 1443 in >

Re: Static route bgp_next_hop attribute.

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 02:23:30PM +0300, oldnick nsp wrote: > Hi all! > > I'm trying to use Bird to announce route with predefined bgp next hop and > to avoid filter manipulation on this route to set next-hop on it. My goal > is to put route configuration into separate include file with fewer

Re: BIRD - Config Support for RFC 3107 - Carrying Label Information in BGP

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 07:40:26PM +, Thiruvazhiyan Lakshmanan wrote: > Hi Ondrej, > Thanks for the reply! How about incoming labels coming from 3107 neighbor? > Can BIRD program the kernel table with mpls label for next-hop loopback? Yes, incoming routes with labels received from RFC 3107

Re: Package repositories

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 09:12:30AM +0200, Jan-Philipp Litza wrote: > Hi list, > > the prebuilt packages under [1] seem to be a bit outdated. While Fedora > and CentOS at least have 1.6.4 available, Debian only has 1.6.3, and > there is not a single package for 2.0. Hi We added Debian packages

Re: ROA 2.x

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 11:14:47PM +0300, Mikhail Mayorov wrote: > > HI > > > > There are no explicit commands to add/delete ROA records dynamically by > > birdc. For static ROA records like in your example you can use a static > > protocol connected to roa4 table to fill static ROA records. > >

Re: [PATCH] filter: Add .srclen attribute to filter on source prefix length

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 10:59:51PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > This adds a new attribute to expose the source prefix length in the same > way as the destination prefix length, via a new .srclen attribute. Hi I generalized the patch and merged that - instead of 'srclen' it adds 'src'

Re: BGP manage advertisement

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 04:35:11PM +0200, Mattia Milani wrote: > > No. Perhaps sometimes in the future, but no definite plan. > > > > yeah but on your site, > http://bird.network.cz/?get_doc=20=bird-6.html#ss6.3 that is the user's > guide 2.0, there is this written: > > Supported standards > >

Re: [PATCH 3/3] babel: Add option to randomise router ID

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 04:29:54PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Ondrej Zajicek <santi...@crfreenet.org> writes: > > > On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 03:14:58PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > >> Ondrej Zajicek <santi...@crfreenet.org> writes: > >&g

Re: BGP manage advertisement

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 01:24:13PM +, Mattia Milani wrote: > And you have a plane to inculude it in the next release? No. Perhaps sometimes in the future, but no definite plan. -- Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santi...@crfreenet.org) OpenPGP encrypted

Re: [PATCH 3/3] babel: Add option to randomise router ID

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 03:14:58PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Ondrej Zajicek <santi...@crfreenet.org> writes: > > Ignoring global setting is OK, i just wonder whether some global > > EUI-64-based unique ID should not be provided directly by the nest > > Tha

Re: Constant delete / add route after upgrade to 1.6.3

On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 08:29:06PM +, Xavier Trilla wrote: > Hi Maria, > > For what I'm seeing, looks like every time birds gets a route update via BGP > the route is replaced, I enabled debug in kernel protocol and I'm seeing this: > > 2018-05-08 22:20:32 icewall_01_BGP > added [best]

Re: BGP next hop

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 07:38:31AM +, Arvin Gan wrote: > Hi all, > >I notice below description in user guide, my understand is source > address mainly used for BGP session for TCP connection ,don't understand > why this source is also used as next_hop_addr calculation. Hi Generally, BGP

Re: ROA 2.x

On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 02:35:17PM +0300, Mikhail Mayorov wrote: > Hi all! > > In version 1.x I used rtconfig for build import/export BGP check. > It was separate files for every protocol included in main config file. > > roa4 table isp1_v4 { > roa4 95.174.96.0/19 max 24 as 49037; > roa4

Re: [PATCH] babel: Set onlink flag for IPv4 routes with unreachable next hop

On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 08:57:43PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Toke Høiland-Jørgensen writes: > > > If the next hop of a route is not a reachable address, the route should be > > installed as onlink. This enables a configuration common in mesh networks > > where the mesh

Re: [PATCH 3/3] babel: Add option to randomise router ID

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 05:15:19PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > When a Babel node restarts, it loses its sequence number, which can cause > its routes to be rejected by peers until the state is cleared out by other > nodes in the network (which can take on the order of minutes). > >

Re: OSPF wireguard fallback

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 01:39:31PM +, chrono wrote: > > Also i saw that your config files do not have 'log' option, so you have > > no logging. You should enable logging and see if there are no error > > messages. > > Ah, interesting: > > 2018-05-03 15:37:32 MyOSPF: HELLO packet sent via

Re: OSPF wireguard fallback

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 12:43:23PM +, chrono wrote: > Hi Ondrej, > > thanks for the quick reply. > > > > What makes me wonder is why wg0 is coming up as stubnet here, > > > while the MPLS links come up as network (stubnet 172.23.3.0/29 > > > metric 10) > > > and 172.23.3.0/29 (wg0 net) not

Re: OSPF wireguard fallback

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 02:54:41PM +0200, Ondrej Zajicek wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:47:31AM +, chrono wrote: > > Ahoy all, > > > > I'm struggling a little to set wireguard as a fallback link > > in conjunction with two MPLS links. In my tests BIRD would &g

Re: OSPF wireguard fallback

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:47:31AM +, chrono wrote: > Ahoy all, > > I'm struggling a little to set wireguard as a fallback link > in conjunction with two MPLS links. In my tests BIRD would > not route traffic through wg0 when I took the other two > interfaces down. The setup is rather simple,

Re: [PATCH 3/3] babel: Add option to randomise router ID

On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 12:41:01PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Toke Høiland-Jørgensen writes: > > > When a Babel node restarts, it loses its sequence number, which can cause > > its routes to be rejected by peers until the state is cleared out by other > > nodes in the

Re: mrtdump-core

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 07:18:06PM +0200, Bjorn Carlsson wrote: > Any plans to merge those updates into version 2? Hi Yes, we have plans to implement that during Q2 or Q3 of 2018. It is not a straightforward merge as there are some more changes to the MRT table code to be done. -- Elen sila

Re: OSPF wireguard fallback

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:47:31AM +, chrono wrote: > Ahoy all, > > I'm struggling a little to set wireguard as a fallback link > in conjunction with two MPLS links. In my tests BIRD would > not route traffic through wg0 when I took the other two > interfaces down. The setup is rather simple,

Re: [PATCH 1/3] babel: Fix type of route entry router ID

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 05:15:17PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > The router ID being assigned to routes was a uint, which discards the upper > 32 bits. This also has the nice side effect of echoing the wrong router ID > back to other routers. Thanks for bugfix. -- Elen sila lumenn'

Re: [PATCH 2/3] babel: Short-circuit route selection for routes we originate ourselves

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 05:15:18PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Routes that are originated by this Babel instance doesn't have an entry in > e->selected, which means that the best route selection logic will always > pick another route when an update arrives for the same prefix. This will

Re: Setting ONLINK flag for arbitrary routes

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 10:54:06PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Hi > > Is it possible to set the ONLINK flag for arbitrary routes? > > The use case is a common setup in mesh networks: All devices have a /32 > assigned to the interface and advertise this as the nexthop for v4 > routes.

Re: Incoming connection rejected

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 03:44:37PM +0200, Julien Sansonnens wrote: > Hello all, > > I'm having a hard time trying to peer with some router over GRE tunnel. I'm > using bird 1.6.4 > I have many GRE tunnels and BGP sessions is working fine on all of the them > except one. > > Session is locked on

Re: MP-BGP announcements

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:18:43AM +0200, Jan-Philipp Litza wrote: > Hi list, > > I'm currently implementing a BGP setup with bird 2.0 and was wondering > whether it is possible to disable announcing IPv6 support to IPv4 peers: > > Local capabilities > Multiprotocol > AF

Re: Debian packages for BIRD v2?

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 06:15:46PM +0200, Pascal Mathis wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to ask if there is already any estimated date when official > Debian packages for BIRD v2 can be expected? The official release > announcement only said that official packages will follow soon™. Generally >

Re: bgp local preference from static protocol

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:20:29AM +0300, Milen Bogunski wrote: > Hello, > > trying to preset local preference for originated route on static protocol > like this > > protocol static mynetwork { > import all; > route 10.1.1.0/24 reject { > bgp_local_pref = 200; >

Re: Route based VPN in Linux

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:52:30PM +0530, Kaushal Shriyan wrote: > Hi, > > I have setup libreswan IPSec VPN tunnel using route based VPN through VTI > interface. Please find the below configurations. > ... > > BGP state: Idle > > Neighbor address: 10.1.2.2 > > Neighbor AS:

Re: BGP route selection

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 03:35:43AM +, Arvin Gan wrote: > Hi all, >Sorry, it's my ambiguous description. What I said default value is Cisco's > admin distance value, eBGP is 20 and iBGP is 200. We plan to use preference > to implement admin distance. Actually ,in bird, the preference of

Re: Bird 1.5 and 1.6 memory leak

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:57:16AM +0200, Willy Goiffon wrote: > Le 2018-04-17 14:27, Alexander Demenshin a écrit : > > On 2018-04-17 13:31, wi...@mailoo.org wrote: > > > > > As I said, the mem leak does not apppear in the `birdc show memory` > > > command. > > > It is shown at the OS level, and

Re: VTI route not set

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 02:38:30PM +0200, Alexander Velkov wrote: > Hi Ruben, > > thank you very much for the answer! > > Ah, you are right. > This is one of the constraints in bird that I don't fully understand. Hi The limitation is here because most routing protocols require an IP address on

Re: BGP attribute ext-next-hop

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 02:52:46PM +0200, Ondrej Zajicek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 09:57:44AM +, Arvin Gan wrote: > > Hi , > >Thanks for so quick reply. Do you mean if (s->channel->afi == > > BGP_AF_IPV4) maybe have bug, need change to if (s->channel-

Re: BGP route selection

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 10:50:24AM +, Arvin Gan wrote: > Hi, > I notice that there is a description of route selection algorithm: > > The global best route selection algorithm is (roughly) as follows: > > * Preferences of the routes are compared. > * Source protocol instance

Re: Auto-summary in BGP

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 01:58:18PM +, Maryam Barshan wrote: > Hi, > > > > I have a question about the auto-summary option in BGP routing protocol. > > May I ask how I can configure it? Hi We do not have auto-summary option in BIRD. You have to configure and announce static routes

Re: BGP attribute ext-next-hop

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:41:25AM +, Arvin Gan wrote: > Hi, > > I found the traditional BGP and MP-BGP are independent in bird, > if use MP_REACH_NLRI, IPV4 NLRI are not used. Has any case that need to > support traditional BGP and MP-BGP at the same time ? That mean have a >

Re: BGP attribute ext-next-hop

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 09:57:44AM +, Arvin Gan wrote: > Hi , >Thanks for so quick reply. Do you mean if (s->channel->afi == BGP_AF_IPV4) > maybe have bug, need change to if (s->channel->afi == BGP_AF_IPV4 && > !s->channel-> ext_next_hop) ? Yes, likely. I will check that. -- Elen

Re: BGP attribute ext-next-hop

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 07:55:28AM +, Arvin Gan wrote: > Hi , > Thanks for your response. Could you help me for another question. > If ext-next-hop is enabled and AFI is BGP_AF_IPV4, next- hop is a IPV4 > address, when update message created, the function bgp_create_mp_reach is > called,

Re: [PATCH] babel: Use acknowledged retractions when losing a prefix

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 05:12:47PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Ondrej Zajicek <santi...@crfreenet.org> writes: > > Hi > > > > Finally, i get some time to read through the patch. I have some questions: > > > > 1) Why the retractions

Re: [PATCH] babel: Use acknowledged retractions when losing a prefix

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 10:25:56PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Toke Høiland-Jørgensen writes: > > > In order to prevent routing loops, Babel installs temporary blackhole > > routes to prefixes that expire or are otherwise lost. These blackhole > > routes are maintained

Re: Receive/export route limit behaviour?

On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 10:52:14PM +0200, Guillaume LUCAS wrote: > Hellow, > > On my BIRD router, I have two IPv4 BGP upstream neighbors. From them, my > router receive 678,000 and 681,000 routes. On these BGP sessions, I have > configured "receive limit 70 action block". > > On this same

Re: Cannot connect two ospf-instances over tun-interface

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:35:03AM +0200, dawid k wrote: > 2018-04-04 10:59 GMT+02:00 Jan Maria Matejka : > > > Hello, > > > > please could you enable 'debug all' for the ospf protocol at server? > > It should tell you whether it receives the packets and what is it doing > >

Re: Cannot connect two ospf-instances over tun-interface

On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 08:05:41AM -0600, Michael McConnell wrote: > OpenVPN won’t do multicast over TUN, only TAP. Well, that would be silly from OpenVPN. But tcpdump output from Dawid K shows that multicast packets are propagated throught TUN: > 06:59:00.439738 IP (tos 0xc0, ttl 1, id 15270,

Re: Cannot connect two ospf-instances over tun-interface

On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 09:23:34AM +0200, dawid k wrote: > ip addr list: > server: > > eth0, lo and > 5: tun0: mtu 1500 qdisc > pfifo_fast state UNKNOWN qlen 100 > link/[65534] > inet 10.29.0.1 peer 10.29.0.2/32 scope global tun0 > > client: > >

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >