June 2012 - Bird-users - Mailing Lists

upgrade 1.2.4 - 1.3.1 reverted
by Arjan Filius 24 Oct '12

24 Oct '12

Hello, upgraded from bird 1.2.4 to bird 1.3.1 last weekend, but needed to revert due to complaints from high bgp traffic to bgpmon.net and 100% cpu load on a 2x bird bgp routers setup connected with iBGP. Did some research, and noticed a high bgp traffic situation on the iBGP sessions (about 10.000 bgp packets in 1.7 second) Based on graph statistics, i noticed a irregular traffic on the trans-ip's as well (noticed after rollback in statistical graphs) In the logging (mostly on the first bgp router) , i noticed quite some messages (33414 in ~12h) like: 29-05-2011 10:57:49 <WARN> Next hop address X.X.X.242 resolvable through recursive route for X.X.X.0/24 29-05-2011 10:57:49 <WARN> Next hop address Y.Y.35.194 resolvable through recursive route for Y.Y.32.0/19 29-05-2011 10:57:52 <WARN> Next hop address X.X.X.241 resolvable through recursive route for X.X.X.0/24 29-05-2011 10:57:52 <WARN> Next hop address X.X.X.242 resolvable through recursive route for X.X.X.0/24 29-05-2011 10:57:55 <WARN> Next hop address Y.Y.35.194 resolvable through recursive route for Y.Y.32.0/19 29-05-2011 10:57:55 <WARN> Next hop address X.X.X.241 resolvable through recursive route for X.X.X.0/24 29-05-2011 10:57:55 <WARN> Next hop address X.X.X.242 resolvable through recursive route for X.X.X.0/24 These are the subnets of the upstream trans-ip links of it's neigbor router On the second (neighbor) bgp router, noticed only such 15 recursive messages I had those upstream trans-ip interface IP's manually added once to the bird.conf with a "protocol static" definition with a subnet of /32. I thought this might be the problem, and wel, disabled those static trans-ip interface routes, except i forgot one. Noticed a lower CPU afterwards, but problem persisted, and i reverted to 1.2.4. Later i noticed i missed one static route to disable, but no time left to upgrade and test again. I think i should have looked at the recursive routes in bird, but i didn't. Does one know what was going on here, and what to do to prevent it when executing another upgrade? I created a 10.000 packet tcpdump capture (full size) of an iBGP session, in case somone would like to look at it. Regards, Arjan Filius -- Arjan Filius mailto:iafilius@xs4all.nl

4 7

Route aggregation in BIRD - how?
by Maciej Wierzbicki 20 Aug '12

20 Aug '12

Hello. Case study: * importing full BGP table from various uplinks * some routes received by BGP are being exported via OSPF to core1, using filters: (source = RTS_BGP && bgp_path ~ [= * ASNXYZ * =]) Question: how to aggregate routes (whenever possible) before exporting them via OSPF to core? Example: lets say that I've received a.b.c.d/22 and a.b.c.d/24 from asnXYZ via BGP. Lets say that I want to export routes with asnXYZ in aspath via ospf to core1 switch. Obviously, a.b.c.d/24 is in a.b.c.d/22, so I would like to export only a.b.c.d/22. Is it doable in bird? If yes, any hint/keywords in doc? -- * Maciej Wierzbicki * At paranoia's poison door * * VOO1-RIPE *

6 14

Re: Route aggregation in BIRD - how?
by Ondrej Zajicek 14 Aug '12

14 Aug '12

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 01:13:16AM +0000, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > On 24.01.2012 22:12, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: >> Ondrej Zajicek wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:30:48PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: >>>> On 23.01.2012 22:00, Ondrej Zajicek wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 08:14:28PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: >>>>>> On 23.01.2012 20:01, Maciej Wierzbicki wrote: >>>>>>> Hello. > > Hello. > Long story short, beta for aggregation protocol is attached. Thanks, i will look at it. -- Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo Ondrej 'SanTiago' Zajicek (email: santiago(a)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."

3 3

OSPF Fast Hello
by Javier Lorenzo Prieto 28 Jun '12

28 Jun '12

We are using BIRD to configure load balancing and redundancy between two sites. These sites are interconnected via two short-range RF links (each with 15 Mpbs effective throughput and delay of 5ms). Because we intend to send VoIP over these links and would like to avoid dropping calls in the event of interruptions in one of the links. Therefore, dynamic routes need to be updated very quickly. --------- SITE 1 -- R1 R2 -- SITE 2 --------- Does BIRD allow setting the parameters as follows? • dead 2 • hello 1 protocol ospf { import all; ecmp on; area 0.0.0.0 { interface "vlan200", "vlan201" { cost 5; check link on; type broadcast; hello 1; retransmit 4; wait 1; dead 2; authentication none; }; }; } When we try this configuration, our routers never reach the point of creating adjacency. However, everything works OK when setting dead=3 and hello=1. Furthermore the parameters dead=2 and hello=1 do work when using QUAGGA. Am I missing anything? Thanks in advance for your help!

3 3

Route selection using MED
by xianglong han 28 Jun '12

28 Jun '12

Hi, all I am building a BGP and OSPF network specified in RFC 3345 which will lead to a BGP oscillation. see below: --------------------------------------------------------------- / -------------------- -------------------- \ | / \ / \ | | | Cluster 1 | | Cluster 2 | | | | | | | | | | | *1 | | | | | Ra(RR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rd(RR) | | | | . . | | . | | | | .*5 .*4 | | .*12 | | | | . . | | . | | | | Rb(C) Rc(C) | | Re(C) | | | | . . | | . | | | \ . . / \ . / | | ---.------------.--- ---------.---------- | \ .(10) .(1) AS1 .(0) / -------.------------.---------------------------.-------------- . . . ------ . ------------ . / \ . / \ . | AS10 | | AS6 | \ / \ / ------ ------------ . . . . . -------------- . / \ | AS100 |- 10.0.0.0/8 \ / -------------- The problem is, the router Rd does not perform as expected in selecting the best route. 10.199.0.0/16 via 10.1.7.2 on eth2 [SR 14:30] * (100-/5) [AS65002i] Type: BGP unicast univ BGP.origin: IGP BGP.as_path: 65002 BGP.next_hop: 10.1.5.2 BGP.med: 1 BGP.local_pref: 100 BGP.originator_id: 10.1.4.2 BGP.cluster_list: 10.1.3.3 via 10.1.1.2 on eth3 [SC 14:29] (100/12) [AS65002i] Type: BGP unicast univ BGP.origin: IGP BGP.as_path: 65002 BGP.next_hop: 10.1.1.2 BGP.med: 0 Should the second route in the above route table be better? as it has a lower med value with the local preference, AS path length and orgins. Thanks

1 0

Routing Question
by dspazman＠epicup.com 28 Jun '12

28 Jun '12

Hi all, I figured you guys were a great place to ask this question, even though it's not bird specific. If you have 2 discrete sites, both with BGP, one announces a 100.100.100.0/20, and another announcing 100.100.100.0/24, will traffic for the /24 block always go to the site announcing the /24, even if it's closer to the site announcing the /20? I was thinking that yes, it always routes to the shortest prefix, no matter the ping or number hops. And I was thinking that held true for ipv6, as well. A /32 and a /28 that cover the same range of addresses (the /32 being a subset of the /28) being announced from two different BGP sessions on two different networks, even if you are originating traffic from the same network the /28 is being announced on, and the /32 is a different network, so has additional hops and latency, any traffic you have going to the addresses in the /32 will go to the other network to go to the specifically announced /32. Thanks!

2 2

Receiving routes with own AS?
by Tom van Leeuwen 24 Jun '12

24 Jun '12

Hi guys, We have a new location and have installed a bgp server with bird. We are already using our AS and bird at the main site, but want to use that one as well on the second site. I'm not sure if I want/need to run iBGP, but if I had and the link would fail, I should have at least a route through IPT to our main site. I'm already connected through IPT at our new site, but I'm not getting any routes for our subnets that are being announced at our main site. Our upstream provider says that they are not filtering the routes and that it should be my configuration that is filtering them. Well, I have 'import all' so that should not be the problem. Does bird have some built in logic that does not accept routes with my own AS? Or is the IPT incorrect? Kind regards, Tom van Leeuwen

3 4

Patch for renaming sk_new()
by Wes Hardaker 18 Jun '12

18 Jun '12

The sk_new() function within bird is identically named to an openssl function. We needed to link against openssl to support BGPSEC, which Michael Baer wrote you about back in March, so I wrote a short patch to rename sk_new() to sk_new_sock() instead. It's attached below and I'd love it if it could be applied to the primary repository. Thanks and let me know if this would cause a problem! -- Wes Hardaker My Pictures: http://capturedonearth.com/ My Thoughts: http://pontifications.hardakers.net/

2 2

Multiple interface per link support in BIRD OSPFv3
by Benjamin Paterson 16 Jun '12

16 Jun '12

Is this supported? (RFC5340 section 4.9) If not, any plans to support it? It'd be great for example to maintain a pointer in each ospf_iface to the active interface for the link, or at least have a way to tell if two interfaces are on the same link.

2 1

Protocol BGP with two tables
by Jan Markus 13 Jun '12

13 Jun '12

Hello, can I somehow say in "protocol bgp peer_xyz {}" to import routes to table1 but export routes from table2 ? Thank you for your time. -Jan

2 2