Why is the route fe80::7270:8bff:fee8:8081 considered dormant? OSPF and static routes have different administrative distance and the static route has lower AD (higher bird preference). # birdc BIRD v2.0.7-11-g4f6e7456 ready. bird> show route Table master4: 0.0.0.0/0 unicast [ospfv2_1 13:28:22.244] * E1 (145/21) [1] [10.210.138.65] via 10.210.138.65 on eth0 10.210.138.64/30 unicast [direct1 13:27:55.058] * (255) dev eth0 unicast [ospfv2_1 13:28:17.245] I (145/10) [10.210.138.65] dev eth0 10.210.138.66/32 unicast [direct1 13:27:53.325] * (255) dev lo 10.210.138.69/32 unicast [direct1 13:28:17.451] * (255) dev p1-2-3-4g0 unicast [ospfv2_1 13:28:29.244] E1 (145/10) [10.210.138.69] via 10.210.138.69 on p1-2-3-4g0 10.210.128.0/24 unicast [ospfv2_1 13:28:22.244] * I (145/11) [10.210.138.65] via 10.210.138.65 on eth0 Table master6: ::/0 unicast [ospfv3_2 13:28:23.245] * E1 (145/20) [1] [10.210.138.65] via fe80::7270:8bff:fee8:8081 on eth0 2a02:1420:1:138b::64/126 unicast [direct1 13:27:55.058] * (255) dev eth0 unicast [ospfv3_2 13:28:18.244] I (145/10) [10.210.138.65] dev eth0 2a02:1420:1:138b::66/128 unicast [direct1 13:27:53.332] * (255) dev lo 2a02:1420:1:138b::69/128 unicast [ospfv3_2 13:28:29.244] * E1 (145/10) [10.210.138.69] via fe80::206:9cff:fe05:b9f1 on p1-2-3-4g0 bird> show static ::/0 via fe80::7270:8bff:fee8:8081 (dormant) bird>
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:42:56PM +0000, Kenth Eriksson wrote:
Why is the route fe80::7270:8bff:fee8:8081 considered dormant? OSPF and static routes have different administrative distance and the static route has lower AD (higher bird preference).
Perhaps you do not have defined iface for link-local route? We should check for that and rejectlink-local routes without specified iface immediately. With iface, it works for me: bird> show static static6 ::/0 via fe80::7270:8bff:fee8:8081%ve0
# birdc BIRD v2.0.7-11-g4f6e7456 ready. ... bird> show static ::/0 via fe80::7270:8bff:fee8:8081 (dormant)
-- 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 Fri, 2020-06-12 at 16:01 +0200, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:42:56PM +0000, Kenth Eriksson wrote:
Why is the route fe80::7270:8bff:fee8:8081 considered dormant? OSPF and static routes have different administrative distance and the static route has lower AD (higher bird preference).
Perhaps you do not have defined iface for link-local route? We should check for that and rejectlink-local routes without specified iface immediately. With iface, it works for me:
Yes static route was given as an immediate nexthop gateway ip. Why is it not possible to resolve the outgoing interface for that case? Neighbor table?
Yes static route was given as an immediate nexthop gateway ip. Why is it not possible to resolve the outgoing interface for that case? Neighbor table?
It's not necessarily unique ... like everything "link-local". 🤷🏼♂️ (unless you explicitly name an interface, that is ...) Greetings, Clemens
participants (3)
-
Clemens Schrimpe -
Kenth Eriksson -
Ondrej Zajicek