<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hello,<br>
<br>
Thanks for your detailed explanation.<br>
<br>
Today I tried the new version of BIRD with the current one setup
with add path rx & rx but I'm observing the following things:<br>
<br>
1) With adding: add paths rx|tx, at first time it looks works fine.
Already more than one route path is advertised via iBGP session.<br>
All members learned properly it.<br>
<br>
2) Till this moment I used the option "gateway direct" but with the
new version I see the following output to return to CLI:<br>
<br>
root@bird-test-RS1:~# birdc configure<br>
BIRD 1.4.2 ready.<br>
Reading configuration from /usr/local/bird-patched/etc/bird.conf<br>
<b>/usr/local/bird-patched/etc/AS65535, line 21: Multihop BGP cannot
use direct gateway mode</b><br>
<br>
Is this no longer supported with this combination or I trying to do
something wrong. <br>
<br>
Here is my current config:<br>
<br>
<i>table T65535</i><i><br>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>protocol pipe P65535 from iBGP_PIPES {</i><i><br>
</i><i> description "RS2";</i><i><br>
</i><i> peer table T65535;</i><i><br>
</i><i> export where RS_PIPE_OUT();</i><i><br>
</i><i>}</i><i><br>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>protocol bgp R0_200 from iBGP {</i><i><br>
</i><i> description "0.200_iBGP_RS1";</i><i><br>
</i><i> source address 10.0.0.100;</i><i><br>
</i><i> neighbor 10.0.0.200 as 65535;</i><i><br>
</i><i> import all;</i><i><br>
</i><i> export all;</i><i><br>
</i><i> passive off;</i><i><br>
</i><i> table T65535;</i><i><br>
</i><i> route limit 10000;</i><i><br>
</i><i> add paths tx;</i><i><br>
</i><i> add paths rx;</i><i><br>
</i><i># gateway direct;</i><i><br>
</i><i>}</i><i><br>
</i><br>
<br>
3) With the new version over established iBGP session between two RS
all prefixes comes with <br>
status "unreachable" but nevertheless, the routes are distributed
properly to the other members RIBs. This is strange.<br>
<br>
Here is output about given IPv4 prefix:<br>
<br>
root@bird-test-RS1:~# birdc show route table T65535 78.130.178.0/24
all<br>
BIRD 1.4.2 ready.<br>
78.130.178.0/24 <b>unreachable</b> [R0_200 12:02:41 from
10.0.0.200] * (100/-) [AS29030i]<br>
Type: BGP unicast univ<br>
BGP.origin: IGP<br>
BGP.as_path: 29030<br>
BGP.next_hop: 10.0.0.22<br>
BGP.med: 1000<br>
BGP.local_pref: 100<br>
BGP.community: (1,1) (1,1023) (64700,29030) (65400,0)
(65400,65400)<br>
<b>unreachable</b> [R0_200 12:02:41 from
10.0.0.200] (100/-) [AS45007i]<br>
Type: BGP unicast univ<br>
BGP.origin: IGP<br>
BGP.as_path: 45007<br>
BGP.next_hop: 10.0.0.21<br>
BGP.med: 1000<br>
BGP.local_pref: 100<br>
BGP.community: (1,1) (1,1087) (64700,45007) (65400,0)
(65400,65400)<br>
<br>
I would like to know if that is normal behavior?<br>
<br>
Thanks in advance!<br>
<br>
Best~<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03/25/2014 11:57 PM, Ondrej Zajicek
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20140325215715.GI1891@localhost" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:20:20AM +0200, Javor Kliachev wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hello,
Unfortunately, I still have no response from anybody. The messages
continue to come into our logs.
The iBGP session is UP since more than 1 week and till this moment we
don't have complaints by some member.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Here is part of my bird.log:
07-03-2014 14:19:41 R0_29: Invalid NEXT_HOP attribute in route
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
This message means that BIRD tries to send a route with NEXT_HOP attribute
X to a neighbor with IP address X.
That happens because both iBGP and RS eBGP do not change NEXT_HOP,
so if you have neighbor N connected to both:
RS1 --- RS2
\ /
\ /
\ /
N
And it propagates the same route to both RS1 and RS2, then you have the
same route both times in RS1 and RS2. Usually the directly received is
prefered, but if for some reason the one received through IBGP is
preferred (perhaps N sends a withdraw, which is propagated first to RS1
so directly received route disappears but the one received from RS2 by
iBGP is still in RS1 for a moment), then it is scheduled for propagation
back to N, but the check for NEXT_HOP denies it.
I am not sure now whether this is some non-standard situation or the
check should be silent. Generally i would advise against connecting
route servers through IBGP. You get most routes two times, therefore
double memory requirements. Another reason is that IBGP (unless with
ADD-PATH extension) will silently eliminate non-preferred routes,
which would cause hidden unexpected problems.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
---<br>
<a
href="http://cloudware.bg/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=signature&utm_content=link&utm_campaign=newwebsite"
style="font-family:Verdana; color:#00ACE5; font-size:12px;
text-decoration:none;">Find out about our new Cloud service -
Cloudware.bg</a><br>
<div style="font-family:Verdana; color:#A0A0A0;font-size:12px;">Access
anywhere. Manage it yourself. Pay as you go.</div>
<hr color="#103E81" align="left" noshade="noshade" size="1"
width="400px">
<div style="font-family:Verdana; color:#103E81; font-size:12px;">
<strong>Javor Kliachev</strong><br>
IP Engineer<br>
<br>
Neterra Ltd.<br>
Telephone: +359 2 975 16 16<br>
Fax: +359 2 975 34 36<br>
</div>
<a href="http://www.neterra.net" style="font-size:12px;
font-family:Verdana; color:#00ACE5; text-decoration:none;">www.neterra.net</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>