November 2019 - Bird-users

RPKI validation on startup
by Brooks Swinnerton 12 Nov '19

12 Nov '19

Hello, I have RPKI validation working correctly, but it seems that when BIRD first starts it does not reject invalid RPKI routes. If I run `reload in <protocol>` everything works great. I suspect this is some sort of race condition in 2.0.7. Has anyone else come across this?

4 3

OSPF Routes
by Chris Althage 11 Nov '19

11 Nov '19

I cannot get my OSPF routes to show up in my Linux Routing table. I have tried multiple configurations, but the routes never populate into Linux. They are present in the Bird Interface, but not outside of Bird. I'm sorry for asking a super easy question here, but I cannot find any good basic information on OSPF configurations online. Here is my BIRDC output: bird> show route 0.0.0.0/0 via 192.168.100.3 on eth0 [ospf1 16:05:29] ! E2 (150/1/1) [1] [192.168.100.3] 192.168.100.0/29 dev eth0 [direct1 16:04:07] * (240) dev eth0 [ospf1 16:04:08] I (150/1) [1.2.3.4] 192.168.200.0/29 dev eth1 [direct1 16:04:07] * (240) dev eth1 [ospf1 16:04:08] I (150/1) [1.2.3.4] And my Linux Output: ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ ip route default via 192.168.200.2 dev eth1 proto static default via 192.168.100.1 dev eth0 proto static 192.168.100.0/29 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.100.2 192.168.200.0/29 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.200.1 And my BIRD Configuration File: ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo cat /etc/bird/bird.conf log syslog all; router id 1.2.3.4; protocol device { scan time 10; } protocol kernel { export all; scan time 15; } protocol direct { interface "*"; import all; } protocol ospf { tick 2; rfc1583compat yes; import all; merge external; area 0 { interface "eth*" { cost 1; type broadcast; hello 10; retransmit 5; wait 40; dead 40; }; }; } I really appreciate any help that anyone has to offer. I'm sure it's something basic and simple, but I do not know enough yet to figure it out on my own. Thanks!

2 1

Validating BGP routes with RPKI
by Brooks Swinnerton 11 Nov '19

11 Nov '19

Just finished up getting RPKI set up using gortr as the validator. I thought I’d document the steps in case anyone else found them helpful: https://brooks.sh/2019/11/11/validating-bgp-routes-with-rpki-in-bird/. Any feedback is welcome.

1 0

IPv6, route reflectors and link-local nexthops
by Jan-Philipp Litza 11 Nov '19

11 Nov '19

Hi list, maybe this question boils down to "How can I tell bird to always use global IPv6 addresses as nexthops". But let me give you a sketch of my problem: RR ---- R1 ---- R2 Addresses: RR 2001:db8:1::100, fe80:1::100%I1 R1 2001:db8:1::1, fe80:1::1%I1 2001:db8:2::1, fe80:2::1%I2 R2 2001:db8:2::2, fe80:2::2%I2 RR is an route reflector with * a direct iBGP session to R1 / 2001:db8:1::1, and * a multihop eBGP session to R2 / 2001:db8:2::2. As RR isn't supposed to forward any traffic, it has "missing lladdr ignore" set on the iBGP session. R1 and R2 don't talk to each other. Let's suppose R2 announces a route for 2001:db8:3::/64 RR sees this route: > bird> show route all 2001:db8:3::/64 > 2001:db8:3::/64 unicast [R2 2019-10-10 from 2001:db8:2::2] * (100/100) [AS4242424242?] > via fe80:1::1 on I1 > Type: BGP univ > BGP.origin: Incomplete > BGP.as_path: 4242424242 > BGP.next_hop: 2001:db8:2::2 > BGP.local_pref: 100 The nexthop is correctly set to the link-local address of R1 that RR can reach. Notice the missing link-local BGP.next_hop, however. Now RR exports this route to R1, and this is where things go wrong: > bird> show route all 2001:db8:3::/64> 2001:db8:3::/64 unicast [RR 2019-10-10 from 2001:db8:1::100] * (100/0) [AS4242424242?] > via fe80:1::100 on I2 > Type: BGP univ > BGP.origin: Incomplete > BGP.as_path: 4242424242 > BGP.next_hop: 2001:db8:2::2 > BGP.local_pref: 100 R1 correctly identifies the BGP.next_hop as being on-link for I2, but uses the link-local address of RR on the interface to R2 as nexthop. (Actually, it's even worse: R1 doesn't really use fe80:1::100 as nexthop, but the link-local address of the peer that was formerly in the place of RR. That address isn't even present anymore on any server anywhere!) I understand the R1 has no way of knowing the link-local address of R2, because it was never part of the BGP.next_hop. But the link-local address of RR was never part of BGP.next_hop, either! So, Questions: Why does bird use link-local nexthops at all, when all neighbors are configured using global addresses? How is it possible that bird uses the link-local address of RR decoupled from its interface? Is there anything I can do to make R1 use the global address (which is the only address in BGP.next_hop) of R2 as the nexthop? Best regards, Jan-Philipp Litza -- Jan-Philipp Litza PLUTEX GmbH Hermann-Ritter-Str. 108 28197 Bremen Hotline: 0800 100 400 800 Telefon: 0800 100 400 821 Telefax: 0800 100 400 888 E-Mail: support(a)plutex.de Internet: http://www.plutex.de USt-IdNr.: DE 815030856 Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bremen, HRB 25144 Geschäftsführer: Torben Belz, Hendrik Lilienthal

2 8

Configuring RPKI returns syntax error, unexpected CF_SYM_UNDEFINED
by Brooks Swinnerton 10 Nov '19

10 Nov '19

Hello, I'm trying to configure RPKI in BIRD 2.0.6. With the following configuration: ``` 200 roa4 table r4; 201 roa6 table r6; 202 203 protocol rpki gortr { 204 roa4 { table r4; }; 205 roa6 { table r6; }; 206 207 remote "rpki.neptunenetworks.org" port 8282; 208 209 retry keep 90; 210 refresh keep 900; 211 expire keep 172800; 212 } ``` I receive the following when loading the configuration: ``` bird> configure soft Reading configuration from /etc/bird.conf /etc/bird.conf:203:10 syntax error, unexpected CF_SYM_UNDEFINED ```

2 2

OSPF graceful restart for unplanned outage?
by Kenth Eriksson 08 Nov '19

08 Nov '19

Hi! Does bird support OSPF graceful restart for unplanned outage? The doc only speaks about planned outage. Section 5 in RFC 3623 describes that OSPF GR mechanism may be used for unplanned outage. Thanks, Kenth

2 3

Debian signing public key
by mikero＠initq.de 07 Nov '19

07 Nov '19

Hello BIRD Team, The public key for signing debian packages is expired. Could you update the public key so we can update our systems without having to --allow-unauthenticated ? Best Regards, Marvin

1 0

Signal readyness to systemd
by Jan-Philipp Litza 06 Nov '19

06 Nov '19

Hi everyone, I had the idea to signal systemd via sd_notify[1] when all routes have been synchronized so that other units depending on a fully functioning network can be started after this point (e.g. keepalived/other cluster services). How would you go about implementing this? I thought about implementing a pseudo-protocol "systemd" that hooks into graceful restart recovery, but that would only work when starting bird with graceful restart recovery enabled. Ideally, it could work anyway, although maybe semantically, that makes sense. Also, is this something that other people are interested in? Does a patch have chances to get merged? Best regards, Jan-Philipp Litza [1]: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/sd_notify.html -- Jan-Philipp Litza PLUTEX GmbH Hermann-Ritter-Str. 108 28197 Bremen Hotline: 0800 100 400 800 Telefon: 0800 100 400 821 Telefax: 0800 100 400 888 E-Mail: support(a)plutex.de Internet: http://www.plutex.de USt-IdNr.: DE 815030856 Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bremen, HRB 25144 Geschäftsführer: Torben Belz, Hendrik Lilienthal

1 0

BGP - draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-19
by Philippe Duke 06 Nov '19

06 Nov '19

Hello, Does someone has an effort to implement draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-19 for BGP? I see there is a difficulty in 4.1 in IGP metric. As far as I know, most of vendors are currently using IGP approach . How can I get IGP an abstract metric for peer address? I see the need to implement BGP-LS first before. It will allow separation of protocols and more. Having BGP-LS stub code would help in implementation of other features. What is your mind about it? Thanks --- Philip

2 3

Please ignore - I need to test as I get no messages from this list
by Bernd Naumann 05 Nov '19

05 Nov '19

Sorry for the noise, but since weeks I got no new messages from this list, which was maybe related to the mentioned MTA GreyListing thingsy...

1 0