After add comment next hop self and add gateway direct: protocol static { route 91.231.205.0/24 reject; route 91.237.68.0/22 reject; } [..] # next hop self; gateway direct; [..] bird> show route 91.231.205.0/24 all 91.231.205.0/24 unreachable [static1 15:27] * (200) Type: static unicast univ via 91.231.205.193 on eth0 [bgp_syscom 15:27] (100) [i] Type: BGP unicast univ BGP.origin: IGP BGP.as_path: BGP.next_hop: 91.231.205.193 BGP.local_pref: 100 Why static route is unreachable? On both routers are two prefixes in static protocol. On second router is the same problem. -- Miłosz Oller Dnia 2012-12-30, nie o godzinie 14:14 +0200, Roman Skopenko pisze:
On 30.12.2012 14:02, Miłosz Oller wrote:
Session on router no.2: protocol bgp bgp_r1_ibgp { description "iBGP"; import all; export all; next hop self; local as 198611; neighbor 91.231.205.193 as 198611; source address 91.231.205.194; }
bird> show route 91.231.205.0/24 all 91.231.205.0/24 unreachable [static1 14:36] * (200) Type: static unicast univ unreachable [bgp_r2_ibgp 14:37 from 91.231.205.193] (100/-) [i] Type: BGP unicast univ BGP.origin: IGP BGP.as_path: BGP.next_hop: 91.231.205.193 BGP.local_pref: 100
Any ideas?
I am not sure... try (if neigbour unreach) gateway direct; or/and (if prefixes do not pass thru) rr client;
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 03:37:25PM +0100, Miłosz Oller wrote:
After add comment next hop self and add gateway direct:
protocol static { route 91.231.205.0/24 reject; route 91.237.68.0/22 reject; }
[..] # next hop self; gateway direct; [..]
bird> show route 91.231.205.0/24 all 91.231.205.0/24 unreachable [static1 15:27] * (200)
Why static route is unreachable?
Hello A route with 'reject' target is unreachable by definition [*]. In future versions we will even support and prefer 'unreachable' keyword instead of 'reject' keyword in static protocol for such routes. [*] If such route is exported to the kernel and the kernel routes a packet according to that route, the packet is rejected with ICMP 'destination unreachable' message. -- 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."
Hi I configured ibgp witch two routers. On R1 "main" prefix is 91.237.68.0/22 (with gw on 68.1 for client network), on R2 "main" is 91.231.205.0/24 (with gw on 205.1 for client network). If protocol static is configured on both routers like: protocol static { route 91.231.205.0/24 reject; route 91.237.68.0/22 reject; } From R1 network 91.231.205.0/24 is unreachable and from R2 91.237.68.0/22 is unreachable. Whithout announce two prefixes on both routers I can't configure VRRP. -- Miłosz Oller Dnia 2013-01-01, wto o godzinie 12:35 +0100, Ondrej Zajicek pisze:
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 03:37:25PM +0100, Miłosz Oller wrote:
After add comment next hop self and add gateway direct:
protocol static { route 91.231.205.0/24 reject; route 91.237.68.0/22 reject; }
[..] # next hop self; gateway direct; [..]
bird> show route 91.231.205.0/24 all 91.231.205.0/24 unreachable [static1 15:27] * (200)
Why static route is unreachable?
Hello
A route with 'reject' target is unreachable by definition [*]. In future versions we will even support and prefer 'unreachable' keyword instead of 'reject' keyword in static protocol for such routes.
[*] If such route is exported to the kernel and the kernel routes a packet according to that route, the packet is rejected with ICMP 'destination unreachable' message.
On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 03:47:32PM +0100, Miłosz Oller wrote:
Hi
I configured ibgp witch two routers. On R1 "main" prefix is 91.237.68.0/22 (with gw on 68.1 for client network), on R2 "main" is 91.231.205.0/24 (with gw on 205.1 for client network).
If protocol static is configured on both routers like: protocol static { route 91.231.205.0/24 reject; route 91.237.68.0/22 reject; }
From R1 network 91.231.205.0/24 is unreachable and from R2 91.237.68.0/22 is unreachable.
Perhaps you could use different kinds of static routes, like: route 91.231.205.0/24 via "eth0"; (if 91.231.205.0/24 is a local network) -- 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 wich router? -- Miłosz Oller Dnia 2013-01-06, nie o godzinie 17:01 +0100, Ondrej Zajicek pisze:
On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 03:47:32PM +0100, Miłosz Oller wrote:
Hi
I configured ibgp witch two routers. On R1 "main" prefix is 91.237.68.0/22 (with gw on 68.1 for client network), on R2 "main" is 91.231.205.0/24 (with gw on 205.1 for client network).
If protocol static is configured on both routers like: protocol static { route 91.231.205.0/24 reject; route 91.237.68.0/22 reject; }
From R1 network 91.231.205.0/24 is unreachable and from R2 91.237.68.0/22 is unreachable.
Perhaps you could use different kinds of static routes, like:
route 91.231.205.0/24 via "eth0";
(if 91.231.205.0/24 is a local network)
This config works protocol bgp bgp_ibgp { description "iBGP Session"; import all; export all; gateway direct; next hop self; local as xxx; neighbor Neighbor_I as xxx; source address Source_IP; } -- Miłosz Oller Dnia 2013-01-01, wto o godzinie 12:35 +0100, Ondrej Zajicek pisze:
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 03:37:25PM +0100, Miłosz Oller wrote:
After add comment next hop self and add gateway direct:
protocol static { route 91.231.205.0/24 reject; route 91.237.68.0/22 reject; }
[..] # next hop self; gateway direct; [..]
bird> show route 91.231.205.0/24 all 91.231.205.0/24 unreachable [static1 15:27] * (200)
Why static route is unreachable?
Hello
A route with 'reject' target is unreachable by definition [*]. In future versions we will even support and prefer 'unreachable' keyword instead of 'reject' keyword in static protocol for such routes.
[*] If such route is exported to the kernel and the kernel routes a packet according to that route, the packet is rejected with ICMP 'destination unreachable' message.
Hi I have now updated BIRD routers to 1.3.9. I configured VRRP with keepalived/Debian, but it's not working properly. My network: OP1 = R01 -iBGP- R02 = OP2 R01 is "main" router for 91.237.68.0/22 R02 is "main" router for 91.231.205.0/24 91.237.68.1 (vip1) and 91.231.205.1 (vip2) are Virtual IP in Keepalived with VRRP. vip1 is switching to R02, then keepalived runs notify script with "configure soft.." to load other config with new protocol static. Then routing to prefixes is gone. Is the right way? Both prefixes must be all the time on both servers in protocol static? How to configure ibgp with vrrp properly? -- Miłosz Oller Dnia 2013-01-01, wto o godzinie 12:35 +0100, Ondrej Zajicek pisze:
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 03:37:25PM +0100, Miłosz Oller wrote:
After add comment next hop self and add gateway direct:
protocol static { route 91.231.205.0/24 reject; route 91.237.68.0/22 reject; }
[..] # next hop self; gateway direct; [..]
bird> show route 91.231.205.0/24 all 91.231.205.0/24 unreachable [static1 15:27] * (200)
Why static route is unreachable?
Hello
A route with 'reject' target is unreachable by definition [*]. In future versions we will even support and prefer 'unreachable' keyword instead of 'reject' keyword in static protocol for such routes.
[*] If such route is exported to the kernel and the kernel routes a packet according to that route, the packet is rejected with ICMP 'destination unreachable' message.
Any ideas? -- Miłosz Oller ul. Cegielniana 8, 89-501 Tuchola GSM: + 48 603 030 347 http://sys-com.pl NIP: 561-154-09-00 REGON: 340779520 Dnia 2013-02-20, śro o godzinie 11:52 +0100, Miłosz Oller pisze:
Hi
I have now updated BIRD routers to 1.3.9. I configured VRRP with keepalived/Debian, but it's not working properly.
My network: OP1 = R01 -iBGP- R02 = OP2
R01 is "main" router for 91.237.68.0/22 R02 is "main" router for 91.231.205.0/24
91.237.68.1 (vip1) and 91.231.205.1 (vip2) are Virtual IP in Keepalived with VRRP. vip1 is switching to R02, then keepalived runs notify script with "configure soft.." to load other config with new protocol static. Then routing to prefixes is gone. Is the right way? Both prefixes must be all the time on both servers in protocol static?
How to configure ibgp with vrrp properly?
participants (2)
-
Miłosz Oller -
Ondrej Zajicek