November 2017 - dev - lists.frrouting.org

no soft bgp clear is triggered on modification to prefixlist / routemap
by François 02 Aug '18

02 Aug '18

Hello, This issue has been discussed here : https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/issues/126 To sum up, when a route-map is modified (tried 2 things: adding a new entry and modifying prefix-list involved), no soft bgp clear is performed, so it looks like other peers never get new results (the "show advertised route" output is correct). Looks like "no route-map ... " and "route-map ..." again does the trick. My question is: do someone has an idea on how to fix that? I can give a shot, but I would appreciate some inputs ;) Ps: I use version 2 of FRR (because Vincent Jardin told that version 3 was not production ready at FRNog 29 ;)) Thanks! -- François

3 6

Missing developer documentation
by Olivier Dugeon 12 Dec '17

12 Dec '17

Hiall, There is missing developer documentation in FRR. In PR #805 I try to update an old Zebra hacking document, but that seems too old to be publish, so I prefer to remove it as suggested during the PR review. For me, the main problem is how to start writing a such documentation ? First, it is too huge and to complicated to be written by only one person. Second, we need a dedicated space (e.g. a new doc project inside FRRouting) to collectively write such documentation and then push into frr master documents when they are ready. Finally, we need to organize themselves in order to collectively decided how to write them, to formalize the document through a common template, to harmonize the documentation... I would start by proposing: * start discussion about this new topic (create a new issue in github) during regular meeting * decide the document format (Markdown, in line github Wiki, LaTeX, TeXi ...) * create a new doc project within FRRouting * propose template * propose Table of Content for each document (perhaps partially common) * open contribution to the different documents Comments are welcome. Regards Olivier

4 6

Discussion on "Linux Foundation Networking Projects"
by Martin Winter 06 Dec '17

06 Dec '17

All, We got approached by the Linux Foundation about some new "Linux Foundation Networking Projects" Umbrella they are planning to set up to combine various network projects. We (FRR) are a Linux Foundation project, but a lightweight one at this time, with basically only the assets held by the LF, so very unlike other projects which had formal companies set up with funding through the LF etc. They are in the process to form a new "Linux Foundation Networking Projects" umbrella and the TSC was approached to see if we are interested to join this. I expect the LF wants a decision by around mid December, so I want to discuss this at the next meeting. At next weeks meeting (Dec 6) there is ONLY a discussion, no decision will be made. However, the TSC is likely to make a decision the week after. Join the call to raise your opinions or just to listen on everyones thoughts. From the original meeting invitation by the Linux Foundation to the TSC: > Hello Open Source Networking Project Developers: > > The Linux Foundation is proud and humbled to host such a collection of > critical and influential open source networking projects for > enterprise, > cloud, and carriers alike. Over the past 5 years these projects have > formed, grown, and matured into key infrastructure components on which > tomorrow’s networking solutions are based. > > Through this journey, members across various networking projects have > requested alignment of the business governance and a greater > opportunity > for technical leverage and collaboration. To that end, the Linux > Foundation has embarked on a plan to provide a structure that allows > for > aligned governance & cross project collaboration while maintaining the > technical independence of all projects. > > To explain this exciting opportunity, answer questions, and get your > feedback, we are hosting a pair of Webinars next week on Nov. 6th, and > 7th. If you’ve been hearing about “Harmonization”, and/or > “Umbrella” > activities and want to understand where we are with those initiatives, > please join us for this Webinar. If you want more details, then please listen to the recording of the call at https://zoom.us/recording/play/M3L8MOR27hz2zWpIbY5--8iTOsn0ASbBJvs--VtbhDX5… - Martin Winter

5 8

gcc error in Configure
by Mostafa Salari 30 Nov '17

30 Nov '17

Hi I tried to install FRR on my own ubuntu1704, with the following configuration: sudo ./configure LIBS="-L/usr/lib/ -lpthread -ldl -lpq" CC=gcc-4.8 --sysconfdir=/usr/local/myrouter --localstatedir=/usr/local/myrouter/state --enable-vtysh --disable-babel --enable-fpm --enable-group=rahyab --enable-user=rahyab --disable-doc but the following error raised with c compiler error (in config.log) gcc-4.8: error: unrecognized command line option '-qversion' gcc-4.8: fatal error: no input files I tried gcc-6 also! How can i proceed :) Thanks

2 1

Redistribution based on source protocol's attributes
by Srinivas K 28 Nov '17

28 Nov '17

Does FRR support BGP route redistribution into OSPF using route-maps with filtering based on BGP attributes like Cisco. If not let me know how to archive it. Ex: Based on BGP community want to set metric-type, metric and tag values (in OSPF) route-map BGP-TO-OSPF deny 5 match community 1 set metric-type type-1 set metric 10 set tag 10101 exit router ospf redistribute bgp route-map BGP-TO-OSPF exit

3 4

draft-keyur-idr-bgp-prefix-limit-orf
by Marco Marzetti 22 Nov '17

22 Nov '17

Dear Developer of FRR, We're working on a draft called draft-keyur-idr-bgp-prefix-limit-orf that you can find on IETF's website at this URL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/dr aft-keyur-idr-bgp-prefix-limit-orf-02 Its goal is to allow BGP speakers to exchange maxprefix values in-band by making use of the ORF capability. We think the ideas expressed in the draft are very simple, but we would like to hear from you how hard it would be to get them implemented in your software. Let me briefly explain how it is supposed to work. Peer A and B set up a BGP session and set ORF as one of the active capabilities. Every time administrators of A change/set/remove maxprefix router A sends an ORF message indicating to router B the new value along with the behavior that router B must follow. In case that the Match field is set to DENY router B will consider the value as purely informational and will follow the usual behavior. Else, in case Match is set to PERMIT, router B will not advertise any prefix if that would cause the amount of advertised (non withdrawn) prefixes to exceed router's A maxprefix value. Please note that what described above is just a coarse summary of what is stated within the draft. We encourage you to read it to better understand what we're working on. In case that you're wondering why draft-keyur-idr-bgp-prefix-limit-orf could be useful here some real world cases: 1) Life safer for unplanned redistribution or fat fingers. In MPLS L3VPNs service providers often impose strict maxprefix limit as those are commercial values discussed before of signing the contracts. An unplanned increment in the advertisements may break the VPN. In that case spokes may prefer to not to announce some routes and still be able to reach the rest of the network from the larger part of the site than loosing all connectivity. And hubs can advertise both default and more specific routes for traffic engineering without the risk of breaking the network. Almost the same applies to FlowSpec where you could prefer to not to advertise some "rules" than to get all of them withdrawn because of an error. 2) Easier and faster method to share maxprefix betweem peers. Maxprefix is one of the few protection mechanisms used by autonomous systems when peering in the DFZ. When networks merge or transit providers get new large customers their NOCs have to reach all the peering partners in an attempt to get maxprefix updated. This is usually done by broadcasting the request by email to all peers (maybe multiple times) a few weeks before of the increment. Then "cross the fingers" and send the additional advertisements. What often happens is emails got lost or unnoticed by the network engineers of the receiving network and AS to AS connectivity breaks for some hours or even days. With the proposed solution the NOCs would be able to verify if the change has been executed before of touching anything. At this very moment we're in the process of refining the draft before of submitting it to the IETF community, but we do understand that internet standards are useful only if they're supported by vendors. For this reason we would like to hear from you how hard it could be to add the features of draft-keyur-idr-bgp-prefix-limit-orf in FRR. In case that it would be too complicated please let us know how we could make things easier. Thank you in advance for the comments or the suggestions you would like to make. Regards -- Marco

1 0

BGP RPKI available in FRouting!
by Donald Sharp 17 Nov '17

17 Nov '17

All - I'd like to announce the arrival of BGP RPKI (RFC 6810) to FRRouting. I'd like to thank Marcel for taking the time to submit this code. To use this code, ensure that you have installed a new dependant library rtrlib available here: http://rtrlib.realmv6.org/ And configure FRR with `--enable-rpki` when compiling it. Thanks! donald

2 1

Next weeks Technical meeting
by Donald Sharp 16 Nov '17

16 Nov '17

I'm going to cancel next weeks Technical Meeting due to it being Thanksgiving Week in America. thanks! donald

1 0

Security Issue CVE-2017-15865
by Donald Sharp 16 Nov '17

16 Nov '17

All - Security Issue CVE-2017-15865: `A Vulnerability exists in the BGP daemon of FRR where a malformed BGP Update packet can leak information from the BGP daemon and cause a denial of service by crashing the daemon` Has been fixed in releases 3.0.2 and 2.0.2 and the master branch of FRR. For further information: https://frrouting.org/community/security/cve-2017-15865.html As always the source is available at https://github.com/frrouting/frr Release Information can be found here: https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/releases thanks! donald

1 0

Package for Debina7
by André Carlim 16 Nov '17

16 Nov '17

Hi! Sorry if I am not posting the right list, however, I need to compile the installable package fo Debian 7, I have a legacy Debian 7 farm and I would like to test the Frr and who knows my routing problems stop, thank you for the attention. -- Best Regards, André Carlim StubNetwork

2 1