- Bird-users - Mailing Lists

patch to OSPF area problem
by David Rohleder 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

Hello, I have got a patch, seems, that it works --- packet.c.orig Sun Sep 3 08:53:15 2000 +++ packet.c Wed Mar 7 16:53:36 2001 @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ return(1); } - if(ps->areaid!=ifa->an) + if(ntohl(ps->areaid)!=ifa->an) { log("%s: Bad OSPF packet received: other area %ld", p->name, ps->areaid); log("%s: Discarding",p->name); -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Rohleder davro(a)ics.muni.cz Institute of Computer Science, Masaryk University Brno, Czech Republic -------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

OSPF and strange area ID
by David Rohleder 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

Hello, i have got strange problem running OSPF: R ----- F ----- R is Bay Networks VNR F is Debian Linux 2.2 (with kernel 2.4.2) when i try to configure OSPF: protocol ospf MyOSPF { # rfc1583compat yes; area 0.0.0.2 { # stub no; # tick 1; interface "eth0" { cost 500; dead count 4; type broadcast; }; interface "eth1" { cost 550; dead count 4; type broadcast; }; interface "eth2" { stub yes; cost 10; }; interface "eth3" { stub yes; cost 10; }; }; } i am getting strange debug messages: Mar 7 16:32:53 fw5 bird: MyOSPF: Bad OSPF packet received: other area 33554432 Mar 7 16:32:53 fw5 bird: MyOSPF: Discarding and tcpdump shows: 16:29:36.338278 fw5.ics.muni.cz > OSPF-ALL.MCAST.net: OSPFv2-hello 44: rtrid 147.251.8.17 area 0.0.0.2 [|ospf] [tos 0xc0] [ttl 1] 16:29:43.932693 routics-are.brno.cesnet.cz > OSPF-ALL.MCAST.net: OSPFv2-hello 52: rtrid routics-are4.brno.cesnet.cz area 0.0.0.2 [|ospf] [tos 0xc0] [ttl 1] i don't see any neighbour. when i change area to 2.0.0.0 (33554432), bird doesn't drop packets and goes to state init/other with R, but tcpdump shows, that bird sends packets with area 2.0.0.0 which collides with R config. It seems to me, that bird does't do translation from net byte order to host byte order when receiving packets (I am not sure, but area 0.0.0.0 could work :-) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Rohleder davro(a)ics.muni.cz Institute of Computer Science, Masaryk University Brno, Czech Republic -------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Routing server traffic thru two external ips.
by Chuck Larson 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

Getting some good feed back, but I am getting the impression that bird may not be the solution. A few have mentioned loadsharing, and I have looked into this. The issue with loadsharing, from what I've read, my ISP must support that two NIC can share the same IP. The is not an option for me. What I do know is that I can add a route to a specific IP to the routing table and it transmits through the second NIC(eth1), default is eth0. There is no interuption to the game and works great. So if I have 12 hosts( with unique ips ), can bird modify the routing table to put 6 hosts on eth0, and 6 on eth1? Parameters to use could be port, protocol, (bandwidth?). My previous e-mail Hi, I am new and would like to know if this is possible with bird. I currently have a game server setup behind a linux router/firewall which is hooked up to two cable modems via two NICS( eth0 and eth1 ). The idea is that if I have 12( or more ) players, how do I tell the kernel( with me telling using route ) TX packets to 6 players on eth0 and the other 6 on eth1. Any thoughts? Sincerely, Chuck Larson Linux newbie of 8 months _ _____________________________________________________________ Domain powered by www.iReg.com E-mail powered by www.1FreeEmail.com

2 1

Re: config file
by David Rohleder 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

Martin Mares <mj(a)ucw.cz> writes: > Hello! > > > i have got another wish :-) > > > > when using ./configure, i would like to set location of bird.conf. > > > > ./configure --prefix=/ > > > > doesn't do that. It still asks for /usr/local/etc/bird.conf > > > > and changing default place for communication socket would be also > > nice. > > > > I know i can set it easily using options, but i prefer using standard > > locations when running without any option. > > Are you sure you were building from a clean tree? > It seems, that building it from clean tree works. Thank you. > ./configure --prefix=/ works perfectly for me. > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Rohleder davro(a)ics.muni.cz Institute of Computer Science, Masaryk University Brno, Czech Republic -------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

question about func in Checksum.c
by Zheng Yuan {ZYUAN1} 06 Mar '01

06 Mar '01

Hi, all I have a question about the func static u16 ipsum_calc_block(u16 *x, unsigned len, u16 sum) I guess we dont need the first len >>= 1 i know we want to move 32 bits at one time, so second len >>= 1 can do it. The first one is redundant. static u16 ipsum_calc_block(u16 *x, unsigned len, u16 sum) { int rest; u32 tmp, *xx; ASSERT(!(len % 2)); if (!len) return sum; len >>= 1; if ((unsigned long) x & 2) /* Align to 32-bit boundary, use x's address */ { sum = add16(sum, *x++); len--; } rest = len & 1; len >>= 1; tmp = 0; xx = (u32 *) x; while (len) { tmp = add32(tmp, *xx++); len--; } sum = add16(sum, add16(tmp & 0xffff, tmp >> 16U)); if (rest) sum = add16(sum, *(u16 *) xx); return sum; }

2 1

config file
by David Rohleder 06 Mar '01

06 Mar '01

Hello, i have got another wish :-) when using ./configure, i would like to set location of bird.conf. ./configure --prefix=/ doesn't do that. It still asks for /usr/local/etc/bird.conf and changing default place for communication socket would be also nice. I know i can set it easily using options, but i prefer using standard locations when running without any option. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Rohleder davro(a)ics.muni.cz Institute of Computer Science, Masaryk University Brno, Czech Republic -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: OSPF and IPv6
by David Rohleder 28 Feb '01

28 Feb '01

Martin Mares <mj(a)ucw.cz> writes: > Hello! > > > Yes, and have 2 binaries for those protocols. Very funny. :-( > > > > I don't see any reason to make 2 binaries, when architecture of your > > programm can easily support both protocols. > > The decision whether to support both protocols in a single binary or not > was very hard, but I don't regret what we had chosen. Else we would get > a ton of extra complexity in all the interfaces and data structures, all > addresses would have to be tagged with address types, route entries would > have to be either sized dynamically or according to the largest address > type used, leading to much slower and space consuming result. In fact, > I think this was one of the principial design failures of Zebra. > > Also, IPv4 and IPv6 are two worlds which have only a little in common, > namely the network interfaces they live on, hence it makes very little > sense to combine them to a single program. Ok then. But when doing ./configure you say --enable-ipv6 . No even a simple word about effectively disabling ipv4 :-( > > > Otherwise, there should be 2 binaries with different names - because > > they do 2 different things. > > > > bird-ipv4 and bird-ipv6 > > > > Think about adding BIRD to for example Debian distribution. If there > > is only one name of this daemon, you have to create 2 conflicting > > packages bird-ipv4 and bird-ipv6. > > I see no problem in distributing bird as packages "bird" (with > /usr/sbin/bird), "bird-ipv6" (providing /usr/sbin/bird-ipv6) and > "bird-doc" providing the documentation. No conflicts there. > Could you please make this change in your package? I mean, when generating bird-ipv6 call it bird-ipv6 and make it read config file etc/bird-ipv6.conf and use different socket for communication with bird client. I have also got a comment about export and import keywords. I don't think it is a good idea to call it this way. These keywords are a part of protocol statement, so "export" semantic is to export routes originating in this protocol to routing table - you call it "import". It is really confusing me. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Rohleder davro(a)ics.muni.cz Institute of Computer Science, Masaryk University Brno, Czech Republic -------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Re: OSPF and IPv6
by David Rohleder 28 Feb '01

28 Feb '01

Martin Mares <mj(a)atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> writes: > Hello! > > > So, you call protocols outside world? Did i understand correctly? > > No, I call everything outside BIRD the "outside world". > > > Your point of view is developer's. You see "core" routing table as a > > main part of bird. But as a user I see protocols as a main part of > > bird. > > No, my point of view is user's -- I see bird as a single entity and I don't > look at its internals. By exporting I mean sending from bird to other > routers via the protocol instance we're just configuring. No need to > distinguish which part of bird is the "inside" and which is "outside" > -- all parts are "inside". Bird user's guide part 3.3: import all | none | filter | where ... Specify a filter to be used for filtering routes coming from the protocol to routing table. export - opposite Here i can see bigger distinction between protocol and routing table, than between protocol and other router. Not all of the protocols have something in common with another routers (kernel and device) I am really confused. May be there si something wrong with doc? Please explain following example: protocol kernel { export all; } Does this mean, that protocol kernel tries to update bird's routing table according to changes in kernel routing table? Or does this mean, that bird tries to update kernel routing table according to changes in bird's routing table? Hmm, it seems i got it: "export" in case of normal routing protocol means routes which will be send to other routers (as i have understood from example 6.1.4). This is what i prefer, but explanation in user's guide is IMHO wrong. import all | none | filter | where ... Specify a filter to be used for filtering routes coming from the protocol to routing table. ^^^^^^^^^ change to "another routers"? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Rohleder davro(a)ics.muni.cz Institute of Computer Science, Masaryk University Brno, Czech Republic -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: OSPF and IPv6
by David Rohleder 27 Feb '01

27 Feb '01

Martin Mares <mj(a)ucw.cz> writes: > > > I have also got a comment about export and import keywords. I don't > > think it is a good idea to call it this way. These keywords are a part > > of protocol statement, so "export" semantic is to export routes > > originating in this protocol to routing table - you call it > > "import". It is really confusing me. > > Agreed. The problem is that the situation is completely symmetric, so any > naming you choose has to be a bit confusing -- it's the same as defining > left and right hand. > > We have chosen "bird-centric" view, hence "export" means "export from > bird to the outside world" and "import" the opposite. So, you call protocols outside world? Did i understand correctly? I agree, that situation is quite symmetric, but when you are inside (protocol definition) then export means "go out of here" (to routing table). Your point of view is developer's. You see "core" routing table as a main part of bird. But as a user I see protocols as a main part of bird. This is certainly caused by configuration file, because there are not configuration commands for "core" routing table. PS: is that list who sends your letter to me and copy to the list, or is that you? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Rohleder davro(a)ics.muni.cz Institute of Computer Science, Masaryk University Brno, Czech Republic -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: OSPF and IPv6
by David Rohleder 26 Feb '01

26 Feb '01

Martin Mares <mj(a)atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> writes: > Hello! > > > Sorry, but i don't want OSPFv3, but OSPFv2 for IPv4 and another > [snip] > > but I can't see any reason for this. > > > > Hmmm, when I enable IPv6, then IPv4 is disabled? Why? > > The reason is that Linux/IPv4 and Linux/IPv6 are two substantially > different ports. > > Unless you want to exchange routes between IPv4 and IPv6 which is > very unlikely, you can run two separate instances of bird, one for > IPv4 and one for IPv6. > Yes, and have 2 binaries for those protocols. Very funny. :-( I don't see any reason to make 2 binaries, when architecture of your programm can easily support both protocols. Otherwise, there should be 2 binaries with different names - because they do 2 different things. bird-ipv4 and bird-ipv6 Think about adding BIRD to for example Debian distribution. If there is only one name of this daemon, you have to create 2 conflicting packages bird-ipv4 and bird-ipv6. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Rohleder davro(a)ics.muni.cz Institute of Computer Science, Masaryk University Brno, Czech Republic -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1