bird version 2.0.4 - peering with cisco version ios xe 16.3.5 - invalid open message

[Marco van Tol]

Op 8 mrt. 2019, om 13:04 heeft Ondrej Zajicek <santiago at crfreenet.org> het volgende geschreven:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 12:35:30PM +0100, Marco van Tol wrote:
>> Hi there,
>> 
>> I'm trying to setup iBGP peering with a cisco router which is giving me an "invalid open message" that I can't seem to fix.
>> 
>> - The same router is peering with Juniper and other bird 1.6.3 routers without issues.
> 
> Hi
> 
> You mean the same BIRD rotuer or the same Cisco router?

Hi,

Many thanks for your quick answer!

Good point, I meant the same BIRD router.

So we have a BIRD 2.0.4 router that is:
- Having issues to peer with a Cisco ios xe 16.3.5 version router on both ipv4 and ipv6 in the exact same way
- Is having no issues to peer with a Juniper and another BIRD 1.6.3 router, both ipv4 and ipv6.

>> - The router is also doing IPv6 based peering with all the other routers, which gives the exact same scenario as with IPv4.
>> -----< cut here >-----
>> 
>> The debug messages I'm getting are these:
>> -----< cut here >-----
>> 2019-03-08 11:02:33.199 <TRACE> peer_type1a_v4: Incoming connection from 10.0.0.2 (port 18581) accepted
>> 2019-03-08 11:02:33.199 <TRACE> peer_type1a_v4: Sending OPEN(ver=4,as=64512,hold=240,id=0a000001)
>> 2019-03-08 11:02:33.200 <TRACE> peer_type1a_v4: Got OPEN(as=64512,hold=180,id=10.0.0.2)
>> 2019-03-08 11:02:33.200 <TRACE> peer_type1a_v4: Sending KEEPALIVE
>> 2019-03-08 11:02:33.201 <RMT> peer_type1a_v4: Received: Invalid OPEN message
>> 2019-03-08 11:02:33.201 <TRACE> peer_type1a_v4: State changed to stop
>> 2019-03-08 11:02:33.201 <TRACE> peer_type1a_v4: Down
>> -----< cut here >-----
>> 
>> My suspicion is that the ipv6 like address representation in the sent open message router id might confuse the cisco.
>> So the opening message we're sending seems to be having the router id represented in hex form, like 32 bits of an IPv6 address.
> 
> That is just a textual representation in logs, there is no difference in
> the packet. For some historical reasons there is a different formatting
> for 'Sending OPEN' and 'Got OPEN' log messages.

Okay that makes sense, thanks for confirming.

> Could you try the 2.0.2 or 2.0.3 versions if they work with the Cisco
> router?

I will have a go at that and let you know.

Many thanks!

-- 
Marco van Tol