December 2018 - dev - lists.frrouting.org

Adding to slack
by Ricardo Adão 16 Dec '18

16 Dec '18

Hello team, Please add me into the slack channel. Thank you, *____________"Why is it drug addicts and computer afficionados are both called users?""If in doubt, paddle out""You shouldn't take life too seriously. You'll never get out alive.""We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them"*

1 0

Topotest updates. Also: Docker
by Christian Franke 12 Dec '18

12 Dec '18

Hello everyone, as you may or may not have notices, there have been some changes to the way we handle topotests. There have been two major changes: a) topotests have been integrated into the frr repository b) topotests have gained docker support This mail is intended to give a brief overview of what this entails. # Topotests in FRR The topotests have moved from their own repository to tests/topotests in the main FRR repository. All the history has been imported and they can be used from this location just as before. However, this change enables us to send new topotests along with new features. Also it removes the hassle of checking which FRRouting version is running from the topotests. # Topotests docker support Raphael and me have come up with a Dockerfile and accompanying shell scripts which can be used to build a docker image which provides an environment suitable to run the topotests in. This is purely an addition to the existing topotests. They can still be run as before. However, they can also be run by executing `make topotests` on any docker enabled system. (For now it's Linux only, but theoretical OS X should be possible) This relieves you from having to figure out how to install an Ubuntu with mininet, exabgp, libyang, etc. etc, as this part is done by the Dockerfile. More details about this can be found here: https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/tree/master/tests/topotests/docker This feature is relatively new, so there might still be a few dragons, but generally, it should be ready for a test drive, if you feel so inclined. Feel free to provide bug reports and suggestions for improvement, or better yet: pull requests. :) All Best, Chris

1 0

bgpd/bgp_mplsvpn.c change
by Donald Sharp 12 Dec '18

12 Dec '18

Anton - Recently you had e23b9ef6d2 committed into FRR. During subsuquent testing it was noticed that this change broke various forms of route-leaking. In order to preserve current functionality, we have backed this commit out. My apologies for not catching these issues earlier on initial submission. In the meantime, we've added new tests to the topotests to catch this problem from happening in the future( see tests/topotests/ bgp-vrf-route-leak-basic and bgp_l3vpn_to_bgp_vrf ). Lou and I believe that your initial approach was probably the right thing to do but it needs to not break existing functionality. What was the use case you were needing this change for? donald

3 2

Reg: FRR PBR Configuration
by valli rama 04 Dec '18

04 Dec '18

Hi, We have the below setup with RIP and PBR configurations [image: image.png] We have RIP default learned for 192.168.57.0 and we are trying to install the PBR Policeis with the Next-hop 192.168.58.0 (other than the default one) Step -1 First we are trying to install the PBR Policy “One” with Sequance Number “1” and binded it to an interface on both the FRRouters A and B [image: image.png] Step -2 And we observed that the Traffic is redirected to the Nexhop given in the policy. Which is working Fine. Step -3 Now we are trying to update and re-install the PBR Policy “One” with Sequance Number “2” and bound it to the same interface on both the FRRouters A and B [image: image.png] [image: image.png] Step-4 We observed that the Traffic is NOT redirected to the Nexhop for Policy with Sequance Number “2”. As per my understanding both the Policies Seq “1” and “2” are belongs to same Policy-Map and Binded to the Interface and Both should work as per the Policy Rules... But Rule with Sequance Number “1” is working as per the Policy Rule But Rule with Sequance Number “2” is not working. Could you please guide me whether I’m missing any configuration steps that should be considered for getting the above stuff working. And could you please let me know how to check the corresponding insalled iptable entry in the linux kernel for the configured FRR PBR policy. Thanks and Regards, Valli

2 3

IPv4 public address with country code
by Owais Ahmad 02 Dec '18

02 Dec '18

Hi All, Can someone guide me how I can achieve following implementation ? I don’t have high class computer science education or university degree so that’s why apologies in advance if following seems Inappropriate or something like that. I just have this question in my mind which I want to clear. I am not big fan of IPv6 so that’s why want to extend functionality of IPv4. I want to have IPv4 all public addresses assigned to each country. It’s like I want to subnet total of Public live IP to each with their country code prefix. Let’s say 216.58.207.238 for Latvia it should be 216.58.207.238*.371* For US it should be 216.58.207.238.*1* End user when he want to handle IP based communications he should know the live/public IP and suffix of that country where servers is hosted Ping 216.58.207.238*.371* otherwise router which on the edge network with custom routing protocols should at least knows default zone when no suffix is assigned. Then it should automatically this append suffix it to requested IP address User pings ping 216.58.207 and router replies Ping 216.58.207.238.*1* Same is case with DNS based communications. When user Ping google.com.lv # the DNS server should automatically resolve it on base of suffix and add country code to it Ping 216.58.207.238.*371* Otherwise DNS server should automatically add country code of default/current region IP address to it e.g. if there is no google.com server hosted in Latvia it should append Germany code to it Ping 216.58.207.238.*49* These are things are mainly to be handle by routing protocol beside DNS resolving job. Also subnetting and NAT/PAT stuff remains same for each country under the umbrella of whole world`s public IP assigned to them. Even end users device seems to be independent of knowing the change. One if thing which is also great is from security point is that IP masking will be difficult as router will miss handle the communications if device with suffix of Latvia is placed in Germany. Please do let me know if any flow diagram required and comments Even bad ones are welcomed. Thanks in advance. Owais.

1 0