- Bird-users - Mailing Lists

[PATCH] OSPF: don't skip next-hop resolve for PtP link for v2 and v3 with IPv6
by Soha Jin 11 Mar '24

11 Mar '24

This is a hack for Linux kernel, who does not support device-only routes for IPv6 multipath. Signed-off-by: Soha Jin <soha(a)jin.sh> --- proto/ospf/rt.c | 16 +++++++++------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/proto/ospf/rt.c b/proto/ospf/rt.c index efcd4e17..54372070 100644 --- a/proto/ospf/rt.c +++ b/proto/ospf/rt.c @@ -1796,13 +1796,6 @@ calc_next_hop(struct ospf_area *oa, struct top_hash_entry *en, if (ifa->type == OSPF_IT_VLINK) return new_nexthop(p, IPA_NONE, NULL, 0); - /* - * The type of the ospf_iface is PtP and the iface is a physical PtP link, - * so we can simply use the iface, and skip further resolving. - */ - if (ifa->type == OSPF_IT_PTP && !(ifa->iface->flags & IF_MULTIACCESS)) - return new_nexthop(p, IPA_NONE, ifa->iface, ifa->ecmp_weight); - if (ospf_is_v2(p) || ospf_is_ip6(p)) { /* @@ -1819,6 +1812,15 @@ calc_next_hop(struct ospf_area *oa, struct top_hash_entry *en, } else { + /* + * The type of the ospf_iface is PtP and the iface is a physical PtP link, + * so we can simply use the iface, and skip further resolving. + * HACK: Linux kernel doesn't support device-only routes for IPv6 + * multipath, that's why this if-branch is placed here rather than above. + */ + if (ifa->type == OSPF_IT_PTP && !(ifa->iface->flags & IF_MULTIACCESS)) + return new_nexthop(p, IPA_NONE, ifa->iface, ifa->ecmp_weight); + /* * Next-hop is taken from lladdr field of Link-LSA, based on Neighbor * Iface ID (nif) field in our Router-LSA, which is just nbr->iface_id. -- 2.39.2

1 0

Strict Bind usability
by Sebastian Hahn 11 Mar '24

11 Mar '24

Hi list, I've been using strict bind for bgp, but there might be a lack in my understanding or I have a proposal for a new feature. Strict bind seems to be a bit more restrictive than I'd like (and than I think it is necessary): I would like to use dynamic bgp (using a range for neighbour) with auto-configured LL IPv6 adresses. This doesn't work, of course, if I need to statically configure the source address, which I am forced to with the strict bind option. I am wondering, is this restriction really needed? There is only one IP address (the LL one) on the interface in question (and the interface is specified in config). I think this should mean that bird could just pick that IP address and use it for both source as well as to bind to. If that is true, could a "source address auto" option or so be added to allow such a configuration? In addition, it would be great if a strict bind option could be added for the babel protocol. Also let me say Thanks for bird, it's a pleasure to use! Cheers Sebastian

2 3

Bird2 on Rocky9.3
by L Cruzero 08 Mar '24

08 Mar '24

Hi, I'm currently running bird2 on rocky8.6, though I need to do some testing on rocky9. In the near future, will there be a release made available of Bird2 that can run Rocky9 ? Rocky Linux release 9.3 5.14.0-362.8.1.el9_3.x86_64 Best regards, LC

3 3

non-persistent route via birdcl
by Robert Blayzor 08 Mar '24

08 Mar '24

Is there any possible way to interact with bird, ie: birdcl to add a non-persistent route into a routing table or is modifying the config and reload the only way? Using some mitigation tools and need to add some external blackhole routes and today it seems the only way to do that is via adding them to a static route config file and reloading. -- inoc.net!rblayzor XMPP: rblayzor.AT.inoc.net PGP: https://pgp.inoc.net/rblayzor/

3 2

iBGP and next hop - bird router
by skanda＠tpg.com.au 02 Mar '24

02 Mar '24

Hi Bird users, I need your kind assistance. We are running bird router in container and peering with one of the edge routers using iBGP. This for a looking glass. All the routes are becoming unreachable due to next hops since the bird router is not feed with all the next hops in the network. How can get the issue resolved ? I want to the change the next hop on the bird router(I don’t want the peering router to be next-hop-self.). Sofar, I am unsuccessful. By hashing out disable under the protocol, we see the interfaces in the routing table. I have done so far following things and unsuccessful. protocol direct { # disabled; # Disable by default ipv4; # Connect to default IPv4 table ipv6; # ... and to default IPv6 table } filter looking_glass if ( net ~ [ 0.0.0.0/0{0,32} ] ) then { bgp_next_hop = 10.252.40.X; (tried both VM or gateway address for VM. Not successful sofar) accept; } Please kindly advise for a working solution. Regards, Skanda Arasalingam PS: first time Bird user

3 2

Q: rpki feed failure
by Elmar K. Bins 02 Mar '24

02 Mar '24

Hi friends, a probably simple question that I haven't found any documentation about, so... We're using Cloudflare's RPKI cache from our BIRD instances, but since yesterday I'm getting an error info in `show protocols`: rpki1 RPKI --- up 15:33:17.594 Cache-Error-No-Data-Available What does the error message mean? Does the remote side not have data available, or is this about some local issue? I'd like to clear this up before I ask Cloudflare... Thanks, Elmar.

5 6

Re: IPv6 routes not imported into Kernel
by Gerdriaan Mulder 29 Feb '24

29 Feb '24

Hi Robert, On 15/11/2023 22:58, Robert Finze wrote: > The Bird config on both systems is nearly identical (only IPs differ) > and also the systems are setup in a similar manner. It would be good to have a dump of the configuration of the non-working system (redact sensitive information such as passwords etc, but leave other information intact). > The routes are correctly learned from upstream and exported to the > kernel, but the kernel is not "learning" them. Interesting. The following dumps you sent might further help debugging the problem. > Netlink route > 0000 00 04 03 38 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ...8............ > 0010 68 00 00 00 18 00 05 05 13 0d 66 02 00 00 00 00 h.........f..... > 0020 0a 28 00 00 fe 0c 00 01 00 00 00 00 14 00 01 00 .(.............. > 0030 26 07 ff 00 0b 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 &............... > 0040 08 00 06 00 20 00 00 00 14 00 07 00 2a 0e 39 40 .... .......*.9@ > 0050 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 08 00 04 00 ................ > 0060 02 00 00 00 14 00 05 00 2a 0e 39 40 de ad 00 00 ........*.9@.... > 0070 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 ........ This decodes to (Wireshark supports "Import from hexdump", as I found out): Linux rtnetlink (route netlink) protocol Netlink message header (type: Add network route) Length: 104 Message type: Add network route (24) Flags: 0x0505 Flags: 0x0505 Sequence: 40242451 Port ID: 0 Address family: AF_INET6 (10) Length of destination: 40 Length of source: 0 TOS filter: 0x00 Routing table ID: 254 Routing protocol: BIRD (0x0c) Route origin: global route (0x00) Route type: Gateway or direct route (0x01) Route flags: 0x00000000 Attribute: Route destination address Len: 20 Type: 0x0001, Route destination address (1) Data: 2607ff000b0000000000000000000000 Attribute: RTA_PRIORITY Len: 8 Type: 0x0006, RTA_PRIORITY (6) Data: 20000000 Attribute: RTA_PREFSRC Len: 20 Type: 0x0007, RTA_PREFSRC (7) Data: 2a0e3940100000000000000000000002 Attribute: Output interface index: 2 Len: 8 Type: 0x0004, Output interface index (4) Output interface index: 2 Attribute: Gateway of the route Len: 20 Type: 0x0005, Gateway of the route (5) Data: 2a0e3940dead00000000000000000001 > 0000 00 04 03 38 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ...8............ > 0010 7c 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 13 0d 66 02 7a 31 09 81 |.........f.z1.. > 0020 ea ff ff ff 68 00 00 00 18 00 05 05 13 0d 66 02 ....h.........f. > 0030 00 00 00 00 0a 28 00 00 fe 0c 00 01 00 00 00 00 .....(.......... > 0040 14 00 01 00 26 07 ff 00 0b 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ....&........... > 0050 00 00 00 00 08 00 06 00 20 00 00 00 14 00 07 00 ........ ....... > 0060 2a 0e 39 40 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 *.9@............ > 0070 08 00 04 00 02 00 00 00 14 00 05 00 2a 0e 39 40 ............*.9@ > 0080 de ad 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 ............ decodes as: Netlink message Netlink message header (type: Error) Length: 124 Message type: Error (0x0002) Flags: 0x0000 Sequence: 40242451 Port ID: 2164863354 Error code: Invalid argument (-EINVAL) (-22) Netlink message header (type: 0x0018) Length: 104 Message type: Protocol-specific (0x0018) Flags: 0x0505 Flags: 0x0505 Sequence: 40242451 Port ID: 0 The first message could probably be replicated by running: ip -6 route add 2607:ff00:b::/40 via 2a0e:3940:dead::1 table 254 protocol bird scope global src 2a0e:3940:1000::2 dev 2 - where dev 2 indicates the network interface with index 2, this is probably ens20 in your setup? - table 254 is most likely the main table (see /etc/iproute2/rt_tables) I'm unsure how to decode RTA_PRIORITY correctly here. Regardless, you could run this command on the non-working host. Perhaps `ip route` can tell you a bit more information. In a slightly modified case (I've replaced the `via ...` with a known gateway), I get: "Error: Invalid source address." (with: iproute2-6.5.0) My current hunch is that `src 2a0e:3940:1000::2` is not a valid address on your system. A closer read on your earlier comment: > The Bird config on both systems is nearly identical (only IPs differ) suggests to look in this direction. Best regards, Gerdriaan Mulder

2 3

babel rtt in bird: How to set the RTT equal to the latency?
by Marek Küthe 29 Feb '24

29 Feb '24

Hello, I have seen that in bird 2.14 the babel rtt extension has been implemented. I was very happy about that! Currently I use the following setting of babeld for rtt: ``` default type tunnel rtt-min 1 rtt-max 1001 max-rtt-penalty 1000 enable-timestamps true ``` It causes the RTT to be equal to the latency to the other node. I have seen that there is both rtt-min and rtt-max setting in bird, but no max-rtt-penalty. So my question is how would I represent the above expression in bird? I would be very happy to get an answer! Greetings Marek Küthe -- Marek Küthe m.k(a)mk16.de er/ihm he/him

3 3

bird not exporting OSPF route
by Nico Schottelius 28 Feb '24

28 Feb '24

Good morning, after switching over to the following filter, as mentioned in the last mails: filter static_and_bgp_and_ospf { if(source = RTS_STATIC || source = RTS_BGP || source = RTS_OSPF) then accept; reject; } I still see routes that are missing in the kernel, even though they are coming in via OSPF and BGP: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- bird> show route all for 2a0a:e5c0:2:a::b Table master6: 2a0a:e5c0:2:a::b/128 unicast [ospf6 2024-02-26] * E2 (150/10/10000) [147.78.194.129] via fe80::3eec:efff:fecb:d81a on eth0 Type: OSPF-E2 univ OSPF.metric1: 10 OSPF.metric2: 10000 OSPF.tag: 0x00000000 OSPF.router_id: 147.78.194.129 unicast [router1_place10_v6_v4 2024-02-26 from 2a0a:e5c0:1:8::50] (100/10) [i] via fe80::21b:21ff:febc:bf36 on eth1 Type: BGP univ BGP.origin: IGP BGP.as_path: BGP.next_hop: 2a0a:e5c0:1:8::50 fe80::21b:21ff:febc:bf36 BGP.local_pref: 500 bird> bird> show protocols all kernel_v6 Name Proto Table State Since Info kernel_v6 Kernel master6 up 2024-02-05 Channel ipv6 State: UP Table: master6 Preference: 10 Input filter: ACCEPT Output filter: static_and_bgp_and_ospf Routes: 0 imported, 199204 exported, 0 preferred Route change stats: received rejected filtered ignored accepted Import updates: 0 0 0 0 0 Import withdraws: 0 0 --- 0 0 Export updates: 11127835 0 7001 --- 11120834 Export withdraws: 1131164 --- --- --- 1133092 bird> show route count filter static_and_bgp_and_ospf 2802064 of 2802068 routes for 937748 networks in table master4 583651 of 583679 routes for 199200 networks in table master6 Total: 3385715 of 3385747 routes for 1136948 networks in 2 tables bird> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (BGP can be ignored, the OSPF route is relevant) Checking on the OS side, I see the local IPv6 address 2a0a:e5c0:2:a::a on lo, but not the remote IPv6 address 2a0a:e5c0:2:a::b that should be added: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [08:08] server122.place10:~# ip -6 r | grep 2a0a:e5c0:2:a 2a0a:e5c0:2:a::a dev lo proto kernel metric 256 pref medium [08:08] server122.place10:~# ip route get 2a0a:e5c0:2:a::b RTNETLINK answers: Host is unreachable [08:17] server122.place10:~# -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What am I doing wrong here? And is there actually a CLI syntax for verifying that a route is accepted by a filter? In case of this particular filter there are a lot of matches, so displaying them and checking is not really feasible. Greetings from Seoul, Nico -- Sustainable and modern Infrastructures by ungleich.ch

2 2

Injecting OSPF learned routes (only)
by Nico Schottelius 27 Feb '24

27 Feb '24

Good morning bird users, I am a bit puzzled about properly adding OSPF learned routes into the kernel and let me show you why: If I use a filter such as: filter static_and_bgp_and_ospf { if(source = RTS_STATIC || source = RTS_BGP || source = RTS_OSPF) then accept; reject; } And configure the kernel to use it like this: protocol kernel kernel_v4 { ipv4 { export filter static_and_bgp_and_ospf; }; } protocol kernel kernel_v6 { ipv6 { export filter static_and_bgp_and_ospf; }; } Then I get route duplications in the kernel: [04:29] server123.place10:~# ip r | grep 147.78.195.224/27 147.78.195.224/27 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 147.78.195.254 147.78.195.224/27 dev eth1 proto bird scope link metric 32 The reason for that semes: - server123 has the route because of an interface address - other hosts in the network also have an interface in that network While this is not necessarily a big problem, it seems wrong to inject the route, because we learned it from OSPF, even though we already had it in the first place. How do you usually handle inserting OSPF learned routes? Do you just have them duplicate or do you have some logic that resembles.. "If I already have that route and I receive it again from outside (such as OSPF), do not inject it again" ? Looking forward to read how you handle this logic! Best regards from Seoul, Nico -- Sustainable and modern Infrastructures by ungleich.ch

4 3