- dev - lists.frrouting.org

Northbound changes discussion - MOM 13/12/2019
by Santosh P K 13 Dec '19

13 Dec '19

Hello All, Below are the points discussed and concluded in today’s meeting. Discussion: 1. Went over static yang model that has addressed last week comments. 2. Currently static yang has its own nexthop defined as we could not use nexthop defined in frr-nexthop.yang. * Frr-nexthop.yang is having only groupings and this would not help for other modules to extend/deviate the same. * Frr-nexthop.yang should be changed and static should make use of the same. 3. Code for handling nexthop-group should be part of the library which right now is sitting under zebra so that all the other modules can leverage it. * Mark may have plans for making it a library. 4. Port only required IETF yang files in separate PR categorized per protocols. 5. Discussed on VRF and how should this be used. * Discussed over network instance defined in IETF. Discussed over restrictions of network-instance in libyang. * Renato will be trying with deviation and see if we can get a workaround for this problem. * Lou suggested to use network instance manually. Conclusion: 1. Agreed to change the exiting frr-nexthop.yang to have common container of nexthop and nexthop-groups. Have only minimum set of leaf which are common across all the modules. Augment/deviate this in protocols as they need. We will meet again on Wednesday 18th Dec 2019 at 8:00AM PST for VRF discussion. Thanks Santosh P K

1 0

Re: [dev] Next northbound meeting
by Lou Berger 13 Dec '19

13 Dec '19

Here are the references I mentioned in the meeting: - slide 7: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-99-bess-03b-yang-lneni-impact-on-mv… - NI rfc: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8529 - L3vpn model (using ni): https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-yang-02 - L2vpn: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang-10 On 12/11/2019 5:29 PM, Santosh P K via dev wrote: > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev(a)lists.frrouting.org > https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev

1 0

Interface mode ospf config not getting deleted opon unconfiguring ospf router
by Naveen K Suvarna 13 Dec '19

13 Dec '19

Hi, In FRR 7.2 OSPF, When ospf router is Unconfigured, interface mode ospf configurations are not getting deleted from running config. Is this behavior designed with any specific reason ? Example: router ospf ospf rouer-id 1.1.1.1 interface Ethernet8 ip ospf area 0 With above config, if I issue command “no router ospf”, interface level ospf configs will not get removed/deleted. Regards Naveen

2 5

Northbound changes discussion - MOM 12/12/2019
by Santosh P K 12 Dec '19

12 Dec '19

Hello All, Below are the points discussed and concluded in today’s meeting. Please correct me If I have missed or captured few conclusions not as we concluded. Discussion: 1. Use of nexthop as leaf ref. * FRR will have to satisfy nexthop being independent object and can be programed independently. * Currently kernel supports this feature and so does FRR with nexthop groups. 2. NULL0 attribute handling * We may not need NULL0 as this special nexthop and we should only provide blackhole interface. * Discussed about different type of interface avalible today in FRR. 3. FRR interface yang v/s IETF yang * Why was FRR interface yang defined while we could have used IETF yang and added augmented more leaf to it. * It was done as a placeholder and we will need to revisit it. 4. VRF usage * Discussed VRF usage for protocols. Should VRF be top of the tree or should be used as leafref. * Discussed different use of VRF being at top of tree and how it may help with configuration. 5. IETF data models usage * Use of IETF data models should not restrict any existing feature that FRR supports today. * We should try to use existing IETF data model with deviations. 6. We will conclude on Staticd review before PIM and IGMP data model. Conclusion: 1. Staticd Yang module will have leafref to nexthop. For this we need to deviate from IETF nexthop and have our own nexthop container defined. 2. Null0 is not required and providing blockhole is enough. 3. VRF should not be restricted on how it should be used with in FRR. It should be used as appropriate for a given protocol. We will meet again on Friday to discuss over the next review items and questions will be published beforehand. Thanks Santosh P K

1 1

Next northbound meeting
by Santosh P K 11 Dec '19

11 Dec '19

Hello All, As discussed in meeting today. We will meet again at 8:00AM PST on Friday 13th Dec 2019. The link for the meeting is as below. https://bluejeans.com/9192742159<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googl…> Agenda and topics to be discussed in upcoming meeting. 1. Review and conclude Static yang. 2. VRF usage conclusion. * We may not be able to use IETF network instance as currently libyang does not support mount option. * Making changes to existing IETF yang to allow VRF at top of the tree. 3. Port of all existing IETF Yang which could be used as is or with extensions in to FRR. * Interface yang. * Routing yang. * And so on. 4. Issues we encountered with libyang while using standard yang. * Currently if we are using ipv6-unicast-routing from IETF routing yang then libyang goes in a loop. * Remove few augment statements from rib-ext, as it is pointing to path which is not available in ietf-routing.yang Thanks Santosh P K

1 0

Odds and Ends from tech meeting
by Donald Sharp 10 Dec '19

10 Dec '19

All - 1) Dec 24 and Dec 31 meetings tech meetings are cancelled. 2) I plan to spend a bit of time on the Jan 7 meeting to allow us to have a bit of a retrospective. Please spend a few minutes thinking about what we've done well and what we've done poorly so we can discuss them in the meeting on the 7th. As always there is always room for improvement and we would love to hear the ideas 3) We plan to pull the next stabilization branch of FRR the week of Jan 5 as well. Please take a few minutes and help us get what is in PR now into the code base if you can. 4) One part of today's meeting centered around adding a new requirement for feature work in FRR. Namely all new Feature work *must* have a CI test that can be run the code to ensure it stays working as people make changes to how the underlying system works. Please be prepared to discuss this further and to see if we can come to a conclusion next week. thanks! donald

1 0

Re: [dev] Northbound work reviews and progress
by Santosh P K 10 Dec '19

10 Dec '19

Below is the link for meeting tomorrow. https://bluejeans.com/9192742159 Thanks Santosh P K On 10/12/19, 10:25 PM, "dev on behalf of Santosh P K via dev" <dev-bounces(a)lists.frrouting.org on behalf of dev(a)lists.frrouting.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev(a)lists.frrouting.org https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.frr…

1 0

Re: [dev] Northbound work reviews and progress
by Santosh P K 10 Dec '19

10 Dec '19

Hello All, Gentle reminder. We will have Yang discussion/review tomorrow at 8AM PST. We will be using Donal's link for the same. Agenda of the meeting. 1. Use of IETF yangs. 2. Review Static, PIM and VRF yang. 3. VRF usage for protocols. Thanks Santosh P K On 09/12/19, 11:37 AM, "dev on behalf of Santosh P K via dev" <dev-bounces(a)lists.frrouting.org on behalf of dev(a)lists.frrouting.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev(a)lists.frrouting.org https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.frr…

1 0

Re: [dev] Northbound work reviews and progress
by Quentin Young 09 Dec '19

09 Dec '19

I think this is appropriate. Probably an hour will be sufficient. Does the hour before next week's technical meeting work for you? On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 3:28 AM Santosh P K via dev <dev(a)lists.frrouting.org> wrote: > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Santosh P K <sapk(a)vmware.com> > To: "dev(a)lists.frrouting.org" <dev(a)lists.frrouting.org> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 08:27:37 +0000 > Subject: Northbound work reviews and progress > > Hello All, > > I would like to know if it makes sense to have a call for all the > northbound work going on against branch nb_conversions. We have received > comments for staticd yang PR https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/5460 > we can discuss them as well. We are ready with PIM Yang file which we would > like to raise PR but before that if we wanted to have common understanding > of how VRF needs to be handled for protocols. > > > > There are different data models around and FRR RIP using VRF in different > way. > > 1. In case of IETF – uses VRF at top level and all protocols are under > that. > 2. In case of Openconfig – uses VRF at the top level and all protocols > are under that. > > > > +--rw network-instances > > +--rw network-instance* [name] > > +--rw name -> ../config/name > > +--rw protocols > > +--rw protocol* [identifier name] > > +--rw identifier -> ../config/identifier > > +--rw name -> ../config/name > > +--rw config > > | +--rw identifier? identityref > > | +--rw name? string > > | +--rw enabled? boolean > > | +--rw default-metric? uint32 > > +--ro state > > +--ro identifier? identityref > > +--ro name? string > > +--ro enabled? boolean > > +--ro default-metric? uint32 > > > > > > 1. In case of FRR rip – uses VRF as a list under RIP. > > > > module: frr-ripd > > +--rw ripd > > +--rw instance* [vrf] > > +--rw vrf string > > > > > > Also I see that there is a new PR for VRF > https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/5492 and we have one defined in > staticd Yang (as it was not there before). To have common understanding and > avoid duplicate effort a call would help. > > > > @Donald Sharp <sharpd(a)cumulusnetworks.com> Can we use next week Tuesday > slot for this discussion? Or shall we schedule a separate meeting on > Wednesday or Friday? Please do suggest. > > > > Thanks > > Santosh P K > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Santosh P K via dev <dev(a)lists.frrouting.org> > To: "dev(a)lists.frrouting.org" <dev(a)lists.frrouting.org> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 00:28:16 -0800 (PST) > Subject: [dev] Northbound work reviews and progress > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev(a)lists.frrouting.org > https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev >

2 4

New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for freerangerouting/frr
by scan-admin＠coverity.com 07 Dec '19

07 Dec '19

Hi, Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to freerangerouting/frr found with Coverity Scan. 6 new defect(s) introduced to freerangerouting/frr found with Coverity Scan. 6 defect(s), reported by Coverity Scan earlier, were marked fixed in the recent build analyzed by Coverity Scan. New defect(s) Reported-by: Coverity Scan Showing 6 of 6 defect(s) ** CID 1488935: Error handling issues (CHECKED_RETURN) /pimd/pim_vxlan.c: 248 in pim_vxlan_orig_mr_up_del() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1488935: Error handling issues (CHECKED_RETURN) /pimd/pim_vxlan.c: 248 in pim_vxlan_orig_mr_up_del() 242 __PRETTY_FUNCTION__); 243 } 244 /* if there are other references register the source 245 * for nht 246 */ 247 if (up) >>> CID 1488935: Error handling issues (CHECKED_RETURN) >>> Calling "pim_rpf_update" without checking return value (as is done elsewhere 4 out of 5 times). 248 pim_rpf_update(vxlan_sg->pim, up, NULL, __func__); 249 } 250 } 251 252 static void pim_vxlan_orig_mr_up_iif_update(struct pim_vxlan_sg *vxlan_sg) 253 { ** CID 1488934: Uninitialized variables (UNINIT) /pimd/pim_mroute.c: 989 in pim_mroute_add() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1488934: Uninitialized variables (UNINIT) /pimd/pim_mroute.c: 989 in pim_mroute_add() 983 * to the correct IIF afterwords. 984 */ 985 if (!c_oil->installed && c_oil->oil.mfcc_origin.s_addr != INADDR_ANY 986 && c_oil->oil.mfcc_parent != 0) { 987 tmp_oil.mfcc_parent = 0; 988 } >>> CID 1488934: Uninitialized variables (UNINIT) >>> Using uninitialized value "tmp_oil". Field "tmp_oil.mfcc_pkt_cnt" is uninitialized when calling "setsockopt". 989 err = setsockopt(pim->mroute_socket, IPPROTO_IP, MRT_ADD_MFC, 990 &tmp_oil, sizeof(tmp_oil)); 991 992 if (!err && !c_oil->installed 993 && c_oil->oil.mfcc_origin.s_addr != INADDR_ANY 994 && c_oil->oil.mfcc_parent != 0) { ** CID 1488933: Null pointer dereferences (REVERSE_INULL) /zebra/zebra_nhg.c: 1415 in nexthop_active() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1488933: Null pointer dereferences (REVERSE_INULL) /zebra/zebra_nhg.c: 1415 in nexthop_active() 1409 1410 /* Lookup should halt if we've matched against ourselves ('top', 1411 * if specified) - i.e., we cannot have a nexthop NH1 is 1412 * resolved by a route NH1. The exception is if the route is a 1413 * host route. 1414 */ >>> CID 1488933: Null pointer dereferences (REVERSE_INULL) >>> Null-checking "top" suggests that it may be null, but it has already been dereferenced on all paths leading to the check. 1415 if (top && rn == top) 1416 if (((afi == AFI_IP) && (rn->p.prefixlen != 32)) 1417 || ((afi == AFI_IP6) && (rn->p.prefixlen != 128))) { 1418 if (IS_ZEBRA_DEBUG_RIB_DETAILED) 1419 zlog_debug( 1420 "\t%s: Matched against ourself and prefix length is not max bit length", ** CID 1488932: Null pointer dereferences (FORWARD_NULL) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1488932: Null pointer dereferences (FORWARD_NULL) /bgpd/bgp_evpn_vty.c: 3804 in bgp_evpn_advertise_pip_ip_mac_magic() 3798 update_advertise_vrf_routes(bgp_vrf); 3799 3800 /* Update (svi) type-2 routes */ 3801 for (ALL_LIST_ELEMENTS_RO(bgp_vrf->l2vnis, node, vpn)) { 3802 if (!bgp_evpn_is_svi_macip_enabled(vpn)) 3803 continue; >>> CID 1488932: Null pointer dereferences (FORWARD_NULL) >>> Passing null pointer "bgp_evpn" to "update_routes_for_vni", which dereferences it. 3804 update_routes_for_vni(bgp_evpn, vpn); 3805 } 3806 } 3807 3808 return CMD_SUCCESS; 3809 } ** CID 1485637: Incorrect expression (SIZEOF_MISMATCH) /qpb/qpb_allocator.h: 57 in qpb_alloc_ptr_array() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1485637: Incorrect expression (SIZEOF_MISMATCH) /qpb/qpb_allocator.h: 57 in qpb_alloc_ptr_array() 51 * 52 * Allocate space for the specified number of pointers. 53 */ 54 static inline void *qpb_alloc_ptr_array(qpb_allocator_t *allocator, 55 size_t num_ptrs) 56 { >>> CID 1485637: Incorrect expression (SIZEOF_MISMATCH) >>> Passing argument "num_ptrs * 8UL /* sizeof (void *) */" to function "qpb_alloc" which returns a value of type "void *" is suspicious. 57 return qpb_alloc(allocator, num_ptrs * sizeof(void *)); 58 } 59 60 /* 61 * qpb_free 62 */ ** CID 1485635: Incorrect expression (SIZEOF_MISMATCH) /qpb/qpb.h: 124 in qpb__l3_prefix__get() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 1485635: Incorrect expression (SIZEOF_MISMATCH) /qpb/qpb.h: 124 in qpb__l3_prefix__get() 118 uint8_t family, struct prefix *prefix) 119 { 120 121 switch (family) { 122 123 case AF_INET: >>> CID 1485635: Incorrect expression (SIZEOF_MISMATCH) >>> Passing argument "prefix" of type "struct prefix *" and argument "16UL" ("sizeof (struct prefix_ipv4)") to function "memset" is suspicious because a multiple of "sizeof (struct prefix) /*48*/" is expected. 124 memset(prefix, 0, sizeof(struct prefix_ipv4)); 125 break; 126 127 case AF_INET6: 128 memset(prefix, 0, sizeof(struct prefix_ipv6)); 129 break; ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ To view the defects in Coverity Scan visit, https://u2389337.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=08onrYu34A-2BWcWUl-2F-2BfV0V0…

1 0