Best practices for redundant iBGP/eBGP route distribution? [bird 2.0.7]

[Nico Schottelius]

Follow up on

> Question 1: Is "direct;" is the right protocol for all links?
>
> As all links are layer 2 connections, we have configured all links to be
> direct. However this causes the "Invalid NEXT_HOP attribute" in various
> situations.

the routers have import/export all statements, but I see the following
behaviour:

dc1:

bird> show route for 2a0a:e5c1:111:111:6aa6:5bc:535a:8e21
Table master6:
2a0a:e5c0::/29       unreachable [place5_v6 2019-12-06] * (200)
bird> show route 2a0a:e5c1:100::/40
Network not found
bird>

dc2:

bird> show route all for 2a0a:e5c1:111:111:6aa6:5bc:535a:8e21
Table master6:
2a0a:e5c1:100::/40   unicast [place6_v6 23:55:06.876] * (200)
        via 2a0a:e5c0:2:2:0:84ff:fe41:f24d on bond0.12
        Type: static univ
bird>

The address 2a0a:e5c0:2:2:0:84ff:fe41:f24d is part of dc2 and I *assume*
the route not being visible is related to this log message:

Dec 16 01:30:12 router2 daemon.err bird: router1_place6_ungleich_ch_v6: Invalid NEXT_HOP attribute

(it would be great if bird would actually lok the NEXT_HOP attribute,
too)


--
Modern, affordable, Swiss Virtual Machines. Visit www.datacenterlight.ch