- Bird-users - Mailing Lists

Check on routes announced by peer
by Simone Morandini 14 Feb '11

14 Feb '11

Hi all, a (hopefully) quick question: one of our peer says it is announcing a set of network to the route server, but there routes do not actually appear to be there... If I issue a "sh route protocol <PEER>" the list is empty, as well as if I issue "sh route where bgp_path.first=<peer-as>". Is there a way to check if those network actually arrive to the route server? Thanks, Simone. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

5 8

birdc scripting
by Matthew Whittaker-Williams 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

Hey, I was wondering if the command line util birdc has a feature for setting the terminal length spacing. Like with quagge or most routers terminal length 0 DECIMAL Number of lines, or zero to disable paging Thanks in advance, Kind regards, Matthew -- News-Service.com - European Usenet Provider Luttenbergweg 4, 1101 EC Amsterdam P.O BOX: 12026 1100 AA, Netherlands http://www.news-service.com +31(0)20 398 1111

3 3

<TRACE> RABCD_0_1: Connect delayed by 5 seconds vs connect retry time
by Stefan Jakob 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

Dear List, Currently I am wondering, how I can improve this situation: 2011-02-09 10:34:36 <TRACE> RABCD_0_1: Connection lost (No route to host) 2011-02-09 10:34:36 <TRACE> RABCD_0_1: Connect delayed by 5 seconds 2011-02-09 10:34:40 <TRACE> RABCD_0_1: Connecting to 2001:from local address 2001: This output appears every 5 seconds in the log This peer is in active mode and I want to increase the "retry time": Regarding http://bird.network.cz/?get_doc&f=bird-6.html#ss6.1 connect retry time number Time in seconds to wait before retrying a failed attempt to connect. Default: 120 seconds. start delay time number Delay in seconds between protocol startup and the first attempt to connect. Default: 5 seconds. Imho the first startup should be delayed 5 seconds and after that connect retry time should be used, to delay next connection attempt. Why isn't this working? Design issue, bug or do I just look at the wrong config options? Rgds, Stefan -- Stefan Jakob e-mail: stefan.jakob(a)de-cix.net DE-CIX Management GmbH Phone: +49 69 1730 902-32 Lindleystr. 12, 60314 Frankfurt Mobile: +49 172 695 8467 Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa Fax: +49 69 4056 2716 Registergericht AG Koeln, HRB 51135 http://www.de-cix.net

2 1

kernel table names
by Oleg 05 Feb '11

05 Feb '11

Hello. It would be nice to use kernel table names instead of numbers. For example, linux iproute2 has /etc/iproute2/rt_tables file for name to number mapping. I don't know about other unixes, but i think they have something like that. If we had some new option: kernel table names "/etc/iproute2/rt_tables"; we would use meaningful names instead of numbers: protocol kernel { scan time 20; import none; export all; kernel table peering1; } Thanks for bird!

1 0

Potential bug in BIRD
by Joakim Tjernlund 04 Feb '11

04 Feb '11

It occurred to me that BIRD may suffer from the same problem as Quagga do: http://marc.info/?l=quagga-dev&m=129681634705098&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=quagga-dev&m=129681632305089&w=2

1 0

Pipe collisions and missing IPv6 LL addresses
by Jerome Durand 01 Feb '11

01 Feb '11

Hi all, I am running bird 1.2.5 as a RS using classical design (one table per peer and one master global). I also added in addition a second table called "collector" that is just populated as the master table with other pipes protocols. Idea is that this table can be polled without touching the master table (never know) 1°) Pipe collisions: -------------------- I have this in my logs: 2011-02-01 10:32:50 <ERR> Pipe collision detected when sending X.Y.Z.T/zz to table collector X.Y.Z.T/zz being of course a valid prefix. Have you guys ever seen this. When does this occur? What is the consequence of a pipe collision? How can I troubleshoot? Note I do have that for IPv4 and IPv6. 2°) Missing LL IPv6 addresses: ------------------------------ I also have some problems with few IPv6 peers which seem not to send me LL addresses. 2011-01-31 16:48:12 <ERR> R655687: Missing link-local next hop address, skipping corresponding routes 2011-01-31 16:48:12 <ERR> R655687: - route xxxx:yyyy::/32 skipped xxxx:yyyy::/32 being a regular IPv6 prefix. The weird thing is that this peering is also flapping... The customer tells me he has the same config with other peerings without any problem. Any hint? Is bird doing more verifications than some vendor routers? Thanks for feedback and sorry if this has already been queried on some forums I'd have missed. -- ------------------------------------------------------------- Jerome Durand Responsable des services aux usagers Services operations & support manager Réseau National de Télécommunications pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche Tel: +33 (0) 1 53 94 20 40 | GIP RENATER Fax: +33 (0) 1 53 94 20 41 | 23-25 rue Daviel E-mail: jdurand(a)renater.fr | 75013 PARIS http://www.renater.fr | FRANCE --------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

BGP sessions resetting on configure
by Stephen Holmes 30 Jan '11

30 Jan '11

Is there a preferred way to reload the configuration? I noticed sometimes when we 'configure soft' it will reset the bgp sessions. Is this the normal behavior? Is there another method? Thanks, Stephen Holmes

3 4

bird route selection problem
by Daniel Rimal 28 Jan '11

28 Jan '11

Hello, i have little weird problem with route selection in bird. A have four routers in my AS, routers called R1 and R2 is running guagga, routers called R3 and R4 is running bird 1.2.5. I have configured full mesh between all of them. IP 81.xxx.yyy.189 and 81.xxx.yyy.190 is ebgp peers. Both, R3 and R4 running bird have established peer with both ebgp routers. IP 109.xxx.yyy.11 and 109.xxx.yyy.12 is IP on R3 respectively R4 (ibgp interconnection) After receive this withdraw from ebgp peer 81.xxx.yyy.189 by R3 for example: 14:19:23.930683 81.xxx.yyy.189 81.x.yyy.185 BGP UPDATE Message Withdrawn prefix: 187.120.96.0 (187.120.96.0) bird do this: - switch route between ebgp and ibgp peer very fast - 288 times (in one second) in this case: 14:19:25 <TRACE> kernel1 < replaced 187.120.96.0/23 via 81.xxx.yyy.190 on bond0.402 14:19:25 <TRACE> kernel1 < replaced 187.120.96.0/23 via 109.xxx.yyy.12 on bond0.403 14:19:25 <TRACE> kernel1 < replaced 187.120.96.0/23 via 81.xxx.yyy.190 on bond0.402 which generates a lot of withdraw/updates messages between all routers in my AS (288 times in this case): 14:19:26.018478 109.xxx.yyy.11 109.xxx.yyy.12 BGP UPDATE Message Withdrawn prefix: 187.120.96.0 (187.120.96.0) 14:19:26.018567 109.xxx.yyy.12 109.xxx.yyy.11 BGP UPDATE Message Withdrawn prefix: 187.120.96.0 (187.120.96.0) 14:19:26.018643 109.xxx.yyy.11 109.xxx.yyy.12 BGP UPDATE Message NLRI prefix: 187.120.96.0 (187.120.96.0) 14:19:26.018766 109.xxx.yyy.12 109.xxx.yyy.11 BGP UPDATE Message NLRI prefix: 187.120.96.0 (187.120.96.0) If i undestant correctly, ebgp peer .189 withdraw this route, but route is still available via ebgp peer .190 and via ibgp peer and it looks bird don't know which path use. This is one concrete case, but i think, bird have this behaviour with almost of all bgp updates, which i can see in debug log. Thanks for any help. Dan Rimal

2 5

Required capability missing
by Simone Morandini 26 Jan '11

26 Jan '11

Hi all, I've just configured a new peer on our IPv6 implementation of BIRD and, as per the subject, I'm receiving the following error with "sh protocols": <peer name> BGP T_<peer name> start 18:05 Idle

4 3

Import/Export filter per peer...looking for suggestions
by Stephen Holmes 24 Jan '11

24 Jan '11

Hi all, We have a few bird configurations we are attempting to throw into production, but there is one thing I cannot figure out entirely. We would like to offer our participants the option to exclude in/outbound to other participants at their choosing. I have a basic setup that filters based on the 'from' ip address of the interface, but this posses a problem. Since I am using a master table this method could potentially reject a network that could have been offered through a non-preferred route (unless that is not the case?). As is the filter function simply looks like this: function bgp_out_ASXXXX(int peeras) { if ! (source = RTS_BGP ) then return false; if (0,peeras) ~ bgp_community then return false; if (myas,peeras) ~ bgp_community then return true; if (0, myas) ~ bgp_community then return false; if from = x.x.x.x then { return false; } return true; } Any suggestions? Thanks, Stephen Holmes

2 3