Hi. I have bird 1.2.2 running on debian lenny on two routers connected by a nonbroadcast configuration. first router has 212.71.191.77/30 on its interface, the second 212.71.191.78/30. They can't negotiate ospf and I get this in the log: bird: OSPF: Bad HELLO packet from 212.71.191.77 - netmask mismatch (255.255.255.128) both routers have additional private prefixes from /25 on their interfaces. Is there a problem with such a setup? it works fine on older birds in the rest of the network. thanks for any pointers mk
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 01:39:25PM +0200, Martin Kraus wrote:
Hi. I have bird 1.2.2 running on debian lenny on two routers connected by a nonbroadcast configuration.
first router has 212.71.191.77/30 on its interface, the second 212.71.191.78/30. They can't negotiate ospf and I get this in the log:
bird: OSPF: Bad HELLO packet from 212.71.191.77 - netmask mismatch (255.255.255.128)
both routers have additional private prefixes from /25 on their interfaces. Is there a problem with such a setup? it works fine on older birds in the rest of the network.
The private /25 prefixes uses private IP addresses? There was a change in BIRD that interface with more IP addresses works like more virtual interfaces with regard to OSPF, but it should not cause problems and it was earlier change (~ 1.2.0). It is strange that reported netmask is /31, but you said that it uses 212.71.191.77/30 . Could you send me output of 'show ospf interface'? -- 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, Jul 12, 2010 at 03:53:31PM +0200, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 01:39:25PM +0200, Martin Kraus wrote: The private /25 prefixes uses private IP addresses? There was a change in BIRD that interface with more IP addresses works like more virtual interfaces with regard to OSPF, but it should not cause problems and it was earlier change (~ 1.2.0).
I have 1.1.4 in most of the network.
It is strange that reported netmask is /31, but you said that it uses 212.71.191.77/30 . Could you send me output of 'show ospf interface'?
When I get rid of the private prefixes it all works fine. when I add them it gets the netmask mismatch (255.255.255.128) again. the /25 is set on the private prefixes. birdc> s o n Interface eth1 (212.71.191.76/30) Type: nbma (strict) Area: 0.0.0.0 (0) State: dr Priority: 1 Cost: 30 Hello timer: 10 Poll timer: 10 Wait timer: 10 Dead timer: 30 Retransmit timer: 5 Designed router (ID): 212.71.177.118 Designed router (IP): 212.71.191.77 Backup designed router (ID): 212.71.152.98 Backup designed router (IP): 212.71.191.78 Interface eth1 (172.23.5.128/25) Type: nbma (strict) Area: 0.0.0.0 (0) State: dr Priority: 1 Cost: 30 Hello timer: 10 Poll timer: 10 Wait timer: 10 Dead timer: 30 Retransmit timer: 5 Designed router (ID): 212.71.177.118 Designed router (IP): 172.23.5.129 Backup designed router (ID): 0.0.0.0 Backup designed router (IP): 0.0.0.0 when I set 172.23.5.254/26 on the interface as another ip address, the error changes to: Bad HELLO packet from 212.71.191.78 - netmask mismatch (255.255.255.192) from that I'd asume that somehow the netmask is taken from the wrong network address. mk
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 05:49:21PM +0200, Martin Kraus wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 03:53:31PM +0200, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 01:39:25PM +0200, Martin Kraus wrote: The private /25 prefixes uses private IP addresses? There was a change in BIRD that interface with more IP addresses works like more virtual interfaces with regard to OSPF, but it should not cause problems and it was earlier change (~ 1.2.0).
I have 1.1.4 in most of the network.
It is strange that reported netmask is /31, but you said that it uses 212.71.191.77/30 . Could you send me output of 'show ospf interface'?
When I get rid of the private prefixes it all works fine. when I add them it gets the netmask mismatch (255.255.255.128) again. the /25 is set on the private prefixes.
Strange, could you also get a tcpdump (vith -vv or -w options) of that hello packets? -- 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, Jul 12, 2010 at 05:49:21PM +0200, Martin Kraus wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 03:53:31PM +0200, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 01:39:25PM +0200, Martin Kraus wrote: The private /25 prefixes uses private IP addresses? There was a change in BIRD that interface with more IP addresses works like more virtual interfaces with regard to OSPF, but it should not cause problems and it was earlier change (~ 1.2.0).
I have 1.1.4 in most of the network.
It is strange that reported netmask is /31, but you said that it uses 212.71.191.77/30 . Could you send me output of 'show ospf interface'?
When I get rid of the private prefixes it all works fine. when I add them it gets the netmask mismatch (255.255.255.128) again. the /25 is set on the private prefixes.
I found the bug, it is specific to NBMA interfaces with multiple addresses. The workaround is to restrict the active iface to only one address, like: interface "eth1" 212.71.191.76/30 { ... }; or you can use supernet, like: interface "eth1" 212.71.0.0/16 { ... }; -- 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, Jul 12, 2010 at 07:43:38PM +0200, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
I found the bug, it is specific to NBMA interfaces with multiple addresses. The workaround is to restrict the active iface to only one address, like:
interface "eth1" 212.71.191.76/30 { ... };
or you can use supernet, like:
interface "eth1" 212.71.0.0/16 { ... };
great. this solved the problem. thank you mk
participants (2)
-
Martin Kraus -
Ondrej Zajicek