Bug? / Patch for BGP next hop issue with frr peers

[Ondrej Zajicek]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:15:33PM +0200, Sebastian Hahn wrote:
> > Well, the RFC 2545 is a bit vague and AFAIK nobody standardized
> > link-local only sessions. Our position is that the first address is
> > always global (as that is necessary for next hop resolving) and the
> > second (optional) is link-local, therefore in cases where no global
> > address is available the proper format of next hop should be (:: ll).
> > 
> > Unfortunately, there are other implementations that use in such cases
> > (ll) or (ll ll), we should handle that in bgp_decode_next_hop_ip(), but
> > the second case is not handled there. Will send you a patch.
> 
> Hi Ondrej,
> 
> thanks for the explanations! In the meantime I have found this bugreport
> from the FRR project, https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/issues/6259 - it
> appears they also want to change the behaviour on their side.

Hi

Here is the promised patch. Could you try it?

-- 
Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo

Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santiago at 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."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: fix-ll-nexthop.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 562 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://trubka.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/attachments/20200429/cd5a41c7/attachment.bin>