- Bird-users - Mailing Lists

bird6: "Netlink: No such process" error from kernel proto on OSPF multipath prefixes
by Israel G. Lugo 30 Jul '15

30 Jul '15

Hello, I am seeing periodic "Netlink: No such process" messages from bird6, apparently related to prefixes learned from OSPF where there are two equal cost paths. I've got ECMP on, and am installing routes to the kernel via kernel protocol. Operating system is GNU/Linux (Debian), kernel 3.16. The problem happens when kernel protocol starts pruning table master. Apparently, it's always deciding to update these multiple-path routes, and has some failure while trying. Log excerpt: bird6: kernel1: fec0:0:0:ffff::2/128: seen bird6: kernel1: fec0:0:0:ffff::3/128: seen bird6: kernel1: ::/0: seen bird6: kernel1: Pruning table master bird6: kernel1: 2001:xxx:yyy:z1::/64: updating bird6: Netlink: No such process bird6: kernel1: 2001:xxx:yyy:z2::/64: updating bird6: Netlink: No such process ... This is what "show route" has to say about one of these routes: bird> show route 2001:xxx:yyy:z1::/64 all 2001:xxx:yyy:z1::/64 multipath [backbone 2015-07-21] * IA (150/20) [193.aa.bb.137] via fe80::21e:bff:fec1:8c4a on eth1 weight 1 via fe80::21e:bff:fec1:8c50 on eth1 weight 1 Type: OSPF-IA unicast univ OSPF.metric1: 20 OSPF.metric2: 16777215 OSPF.tag: 0x00000000 OSPF.router_id: 193.aa.bb.137 "show route" periodically displays these routes with a '!' instead of '*', indicating a synchronization error. These "No such process" messages seem to occur every 40 seconds or so. I am seeing this error both on BIRD 1.4.5 and BIRD 1.5.0. Relevant topology: Four BIRD routers, A, B, C and D. All in area 0. A+B are ABR for area 194, and C+D are ABR for area 165. A and B announce IA prefixes z1, z2, z3, z4, z5, z6, z7 and z8 with equal cost. C and D announce IA prefixes z9 and z10 with equal cost. A and B have the error on prefixes from C and D, and vice-versa. Routes seem to disappear from kernel periodically, and are reinstalled again (monitoring with "ip -6 r"). Other routes, non-multipath from other routers, do not seem affected. Relevant config, from routers C and D: # common to all routers protocol kernel { learn; persist; scan time 20; export all; } protocol ospf backbone { tick 1; ecmp yes; area 0.0.0.0 { stub no; interface "eth1" { check link yes; }; }; area 0.0.165.0 { stub yes; summary yes; interface "eth0.2000" { type ptp; check link yes; }; interface "eth0.141", "eth0.165", "eth0.1411" { stub; check link yes; }; networks { 2001:xxx:yyy:z9::/64; 2001:xxx:yyy:z10::/64; }; }; } Routers A and B are similar but different prefixes of course. I do not see this problem with IPv4 bird (also OSPF, similar configuration). Could this be some bug with kernel protocol and multipath routes? I am available for further explanations or more details (logs, configs). Best regards, -- Israel G. Lugo Núcleo de Redes e Comunicações Direção de Serviços de Informática Instituto Superior Técnico

4 5

ZeroMQ integration for route output
by Sam Russell 28 Jul '15

28 Jul '15

Hi all, I've been working on integrating BIRD into some SDN packages (VANDERVECKEN/RouteFlow, ONOS), and as part of this I've built zeromq in as an option. It's still beta, but you can stand up BIRD and poll the ZeroMQ socket and it'll reply with a route table dump in JSON. Keen to hear what people think https://github.com/samrussell/bird/tree/zmqintegration Cheers Sam

2 2

Avoiding routes being tagged as 'unreachable' when building a route-server / lg
by Paul S. 27 Jul '15

27 Jul '15

Hi guys, New BIRD user here, I'm trying to use bird to build a looking glass / route collector. All my core routers (I don't have a backbone network, so they run separately) are forwarding the full table by treating the bird system as a rr client. So far, this part of it works fine. The sessions are IBGP (and multihop by nature). My problem is the fact that bird classifies the routes as unreachable (as they indeed are, but I don't intend to use them to forward) and mentions this in the birdc lookups. A sample is given at the bottom, as well as the very simple config that I'm using right now (No tables, but I intend to set up tables per peer ('location') later) My question is how should I deal with this issue? bird> show route 8.8.8.0/24 all 8.8.8.0/24 unreachable [dfw_cr_0 07:39:20 from 10.1.13.1] * (100/-) [AS15169i] Type: BGP unicast univ BGP.origin: IGP BGP.as_path: 3491 15169 BGP.next_hop: 63.218.23.65 BGP.local_pref: 400 BGP.community: (3491,2000) (3491,2001) (3491,15169) unreachable [syd_ocr_0 07:40:16 from 10.2.1.217] (100/-) [AS15169i] Type: BGP unicast univ BGP.origin: IGP BGP.as_path: 15169 BGP.next_hop: 103.26.68.56 BGP.med: 0 BGP.local_pref: 106 BGP.community: (58941,0) unreachable [lax_ocr_0 07:39:26 from 10.3.14.1] (100/-) [AS15169i] Type: BGP unicast univ BGP.origin: IGP BGP.as_path: 15169 BGP.next_hop: 206.72.210.41 BGP.med: 0 BGP.local_pref: 108 BGP.community: (19996,19996) unreachable [jfk_ocr_0 07:39:21 from 10.4.15.1] (100/-) [AS15169i] Type: BGP unicast univ BGP.origin: IGP BGP.as_path: 174 15169 BGP.next_hop: 38.104.75.221 BGP.med: 10040 BGP.local_pref: 100 BGP.community: (174,21000) (174,22013) Current config, the macros have been removed for obvious reasons. > log "/var/log/bird.log" all; > > router id r_id; > > > protocol device { } > > template bgp peers { > local as myas; > multihop; > import all; > export none; > } > > protocol bgp syd_ocr_0 from peers > { > description "Sydney Open Core 0"; > neighbor syd_ocr_0_ip as peeras; > password syd_ocr_0_password; > } > > protocol bgp lax_ocr_0 from peers > { > description "Los Angeles Open Core 0"; > neighbor lax_ocr_0_ip as peeras; > password lax_ocr_0_password; > } > > protocol bgp jfk_ocr_0 from peers > { > description "New York Open Core 0"; > neighbor jfk_ocr_0_ip as peeras; > password jfk_ocr_0_password; > } > > protocol bgp dfw_ocr_0 from peers > { > description "Dallas Open Core 0"; > neighbor dfw_ocr_0_ip as peeras; > password dfw_ocr_0_password; > }

3 4

Enhanced Route Refresh Capability (rfc7313)
by Arnaud Fenioux 27 Jul '15

27 Jul '15

Hello, We updated one of our Route-server and noticed that a few number of our peers could not establish IPv6 sessions with us. The reason in the logs was "Received: Required capability missing”. After some tcpdump and investigation we found that Enhanced Route Refresh Capability was newly advertised (as explained in the bird release notes). Sadly Juniper boxes do think that this capability is mandatory (only) in IPv6. We have disabled route refresh (enhanced and regular), as a work-around, for these peers. enable route refresh off; Would it be possible to only disable enhanced route refresh in the configuration file for a next release of bird? Cheers, -- Arnaud Fenioux Network Engineer - FranceIX

4 6

ospf router database
by Ed Rahn 25 Jul '15

25 Jul '15

Can someone point me in the direction of an overview of ospf? I would like to learn about router databases, how to setup a configuration file, and how to access the information contained in their data packet. thanks Ed

1 0

multiple routing table in OSPF
by zeinab Farhadi 23 Jul '15

23 Jul '15

Hello, My question is how do you execute multiple routing table in OSPF protocol in BIRD (with Ubuntu 15.04)? Do iproute2 in multiple routing tables are used? would you mind please explain it in the scenario, I really need your favor. Please answer me, Thank you in advance, Best Regards,

2 1

BGP rejected by protocol
by Chip Marshall 21 Jul '15

21 Jul '15

Hello, I'm attempting to use BIRD to redistribute routes from a couple of interesting BGP feed services (Cymru bogons and UTRS) to a bunch of our edge routers, but I'm hitting an issue where BIRD isn't exporting the routes to our edge, every prefix is getting a "rejected by protocol" message in the log. bird6: edge1 < rejected by protocol 2407:dc20::/27 via [removed] on eth0 Here's a copy of my config with sensitive bits removed: https://gist.github.com/2bithacker/6561aa4484507c8f2d9d I think the problem might be related to talking to some peers from one AS and others from an internal AS, but I've tried changing them all to the same AS and it didn't help. Any pointers would be appreciated. I just wish "rejected by protocol" would provide a bit more detail on why it was rejected. -- Chip Marshall <chip(a)2bithacker.net> http://2bithacker.net/

2 2

listen address bug
by bird＠unicycle.net 20 Jul '15

20 Jul '15

Hi, I've been debugging a bird6.conf (doing two ASN's) for almost two days, finding each time only one half working, and so being convinced it should work. So finaly I could made a clear conclusion: table as5; table as6; # router id 1.2.3.68; # # mysterious failure: #listen bgp address 2001::1a port 179; #listen bgp address 2001::2a port 179; # this works fine: listen bgp address 2001::2a port 179; listen bgp address 2001::1a port 179; # 8< ----- So by these I'd like to report. -- Leo

3 4

OSPF and mass route deletion
by Andrew 19 Jul '15

19 Jul '15

When routes are deleted (for ex., terminating a lot of PPP tunnels for some reason in same time), it seems like each removed route is sent into separate OSPF packet that causes troubles with OSPF in some cases (for ex., there's troubles with old quagga). Is there a possibility to add some rate-limiting (for ex., limit to 10 messages per second), and aggregate separate 'route deleted' messages to one packet?

5 6

Route reflector not setting originator_id
by Evelio VILA 17 Jul '15

17 Jul '15

Hello, I have a very simple setup with one rr and one rr client. Im not seeing ORIGINATOR_ID nor CLUSTER_LIST attributes appended to the updates sent to the rr client. Aren't those supposed to be mandatory per RFC 4456 ? filter wr1_import { reject; } filter wr1_export prefix set te_internal; { te_internal = [ 10.0.0.0/8 ]; if (net ~ te_internal) then reject; accept; } protocol bgp bgp_wr1_v4 { description "something"; import filter wr1_import; export filter wr1_export; multihop 2; password "pass"; local as my_as; neighbor X.X.X.X as my_as; source address x.x.x.x; rr client; rr cluster id 1.1.1.1; }

2 1