On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 02:08:40PM +0200, KORN Andras wrote:
21-09-2009 12:55:08 <WARN> Received HELLO packet address (172.18.32.254) is inconsistent with the primary address of interface tap4.
It indeed is inconsistent, because all tap interfaces have the same address on each router (specific to the router, with a /32 mask)
BIRD expects that interface uses either 'standard' network address, or address with /32 mask and specified peer address (configured with 'ip address add IP1 peer IP2 dev DEV' or similarly using ifconfig and pointopoint). In both cases there should not be this warning as this warning means that Hello message was ignored.
OK, I will retry with this kind of peer setup, but I think I can't test anything meaningfully while my routes cause a segfault.
I can confirm that I indeed don't get the warning this way; however, bird doesn't seem to import some 'alien' routes that are imported if I specify them inside static { }. I had these static routes in my kernel routing table: 172.18.4.0/24 dev wifi proto kernel scope link src 172.18.4.254 172.18.0.0/22 dev intra proto kernel scope link src 172.18.1.254 172.18.8.0/21 dev dmz proto kernel scope link src 172.18.8.254 And bird didn't send them to its peer. When I specified them in static { }, they were missing the "src" attribute but were propagated over OSPF. Nevertheless, bird is approaching usability for me now, although I haven't yet dared try it on my real routing tables. :) I certainly like the approach a lot better than quagga & co. Andras -- Andras Korn <korn at elan.rulez.org> - <http://chardonnay.math.bme.hu/~korn/> Expert - Someone who knows less, but makes more money.