[PATCH] Multiple neighbor range protocols in BGP
Hey all, I was doing some work with dynamic neighbors in BGP, and found that I am not able to use multiple protocol definitions with neighbor ranges. Connections to the second and subsequent definitions are rejected. The BGP protocol for the subsequent instances depend on a lock, but due to the remote_addresses being the same (null) the subsequent protocols hang, waiting for the first protocol. Attached is a small patch which checks if the protocol is dynamic, and uses the remote_range prefix instead of a zero remote_address for the lock. Hope this helps. Thanks, Liam Nattrass
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 07:58:07PM -0400, Liam Nattrass wrote:
Hey all,
I was doing some work with dynamic neighbors in BGP, and found that I am not able to use multiple protocol definitions with neighbor ranges. Connections to the second and subsequent definitions are rejected.
The BGP protocol for the subsequent instances depend on a lock, but due to the remote_addresses being the same (null) the subsequent protocols hang, waiting for the first protocol.
Attached is a small patch which checks if the protocol is dynamic, and uses the remote_range prefix instead of a zero remote_address for the lock.
Hi Thanks for the patch. You are right about the bug. The patch fixes it, but also breaks the case where a neighbor uses the first address from the range (the address that is the same as the range prefix). I will check what can be done with that. -- Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santiago@crfreenet.org) OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net) "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."
Hey Ondrej, Good point... Perhaps we can specify an instance ID (which doesn't appear to be used in the BGP proto anywhere) to differentiate dynamic instances from static instances? (See patch) Thanks, Liam On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:46 AM Ondrej Zajicek <santiago@crfreenet.org> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 07:58:07PM -0400, Liam Nattrass wrote:
Hey all,
I was doing some work with dynamic neighbors in BGP, and found that I am not able to use multiple protocol definitions with neighbor ranges. Connections to the second and subsequent definitions are rejected.
The BGP protocol for the subsequent instances depend on a lock, but due to the remote_addresses being the same (null) the subsequent protocols hang, waiting for the first protocol.
Attached is a small patch which checks if the protocol is dynamic, and uses the remote_range prefix instead of a zero remote_address for the lock.
Hi
Thanks for the patch. You are right about the bug. The patch fixes it, but also breaks the case where a neighbor uses the first address from the range (the address that is the same as the range prefix). I will check what can be done with that.
-- Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo
Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santiago@crfreenet.org) OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net) "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:11:45AM -0400, Liam Nattrass wrote:
Hey Ondrej,
Good point... Perhaps we can specify an instance ID (which doesn't appear to be used in the BGP proto anywhere) to differentiate dynamic instances from static instances? (See patch)
Hi Using instance ID is a bit of hacky abuse, but most likely OK. Thanks, merged (with some minor cleanups). -- Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santiago@crfreenet.org) OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net) "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."
participants (2)
-
Liam Nattrass -
Ondrej Zajicek