- frog - lists.frrouting.org

vtysh -f "Unknown command"
by Volodymyr Litovka 03 Dec '19

03 Dec '19

Dear friends, probably, I'm missing something, but I'm not able to use "vtysh -f <filename>", while "vtysh -c" works perfectly: # vtysh -c "show daemons" zebra bgpd watchfrr staticd # cat inp.txt show daemons # vtysh -f inp.txt line 1: % Unknown command[4]: show daemons # echo "show daemons" | vtysh -f /dev/stdin line 1: % Unknown command[4]: show daemons FRR v7.2 under Ubuntu 18.04 I will appreciate any ideas on how to configure FRR using pre-generated configuration. Thank you! -- Volodymyr Litovka "Vision without Execution is Hallucination." -- Thomas Edison

2 4

DMVPN(nhrpd) status question
by Антон Жаровцев 19 Nov '19

19 Nov '19

Hello. According to nhrpd docs (http://docs.frrouting.org/en/latest/nhrpd.html) need to patches strongswan to work together with frr/nhrpd but this document has date 2017. Is it still need to apply thous patches on strongswan or fresh versions of FRR and strongswan will work together out of the box now ? B.t.w. 1 month ago I tried to set up nhrp network without ipsec but all traffic went through hubs. I did not try to use strongswan due to need to apply this patch (I don't like patched software on docker containers, it is hard to support it then)

3 4

FRR as Route-Reflector & Scaling stats
by Rakesh M 18 Nov '19

18 Nov '19

Hi FRRTeam, We want to Deploy and use FRR for Route reflection on a Dell Edge. Any one has expereience with it and can give insight into number of routes and scale that you used FRR to do Route Reflection -- Rakesh Madupu 2xJNCIE - SP/DC / CCIE-SP#47613 https://r2079.wordpress.com

4 6

Opensource routing @ ietf meetup -- Monday Lunch
by Lou Berger 17 Nov '19

17 Nov '19

Hi, We're continuing with the informal Open Source routing @ ietf meetup. Anyone interested in joining a "bring your own lunch" gathering of folks using/building open source routing code, please drop in to "Bras Basah" on *Monday* during lunch (noon). There is no agenda or slides. Please feel free to bring a topic that you'd like to discuss or just come and listen. Cheers, Lou

3 2

import vrf <vrf_name> vs route-map match source-vrf <vrf_name>
by Bing.S＠dell.com 14 Nov '19

14 Nov '19

Hi, Is there any difference between "import vrf <vrf_name>" and "match source-vrf <vrf_name>" For example route-map myMap permit 1 match ip address prefix-list p1 option1: having "match source-vrf" in the same myMap route-map myMap permit 1 match ip address prefix-list p1 match source-vrf Vrf_red for vrf_blue: address-familiy ipv4 unicast route-map vpn import myMap rt vpn import 1111:11 import vpn option2: do not have "match source-vrf" in the myMap route-map myMap permit 1 match ip address prefix-list p1 for vrf_blue: address-family ipv4 unicast import vrf route-map myMap import vrf Vrf_red What is the difference in terms of routes filtering between the 2 options? Thanks, Bing

2 2

route distinguisher configuration on FRR bgp
by Bing.S＠dell.com 08 Nov '19

08 Nov '19

Hi, Looks like the same route distinguisher can be configured on multiple VRFs in FRR. Would this cause problem? Thanks.

3 2

FRR on Juniper switches
by Rudy Rucker 29 Oct '19

29 Oct '19

Is anyone running FRR on Juniper switches? I read this article, but it looks more like an R&D setup. https://forums.juniper.net/t5/Industry-Solutions-and-Trends/FRRouting-on-Ju… Rudy

1 0

Routes learned from iBGP are not maintaining Metrics when advertised to eBGP peers
by Lee Clements 23 Oct '19

23 Oct '19

Doing some testing on FRR here, and hoping for some assistance. Hopefully this is the right place to go. If not, please let me know! I've got 3 remote iBGP peers that are configured as standard iBGP peers. These two iBGP peers learn some routes locally and then re-advertise these prefixes over a full-mesh iBGP network to each other, with FRR being one of the four routers in the mesh. The other three iBGP peers are Cisco. FRR has one eBGP peer, to replicate re-advertising these routes out to iBGP. In our other three iBGP peers, we leverage route-maps to increment the received MED value of the route, so that we can prefer locally received eBGP routes - all else being equal - as opposed to those learned from our iBGP speakers in other locations. We also do this so locally originated prefixes from our AS have a higher metric when going out to eBGP speakers so they don't inadvertently get preferenced when there's a better path for the route to take. I am receiving the routes from our iBGP speakers fine, and see the incremented MED on receipt of the routes from the aforementioned speaker. When I configure a local (to FRR) iBGP speaker as a route-reflector-client within the same AS, these pre-incremented MED's are correctly advertised to the local iBGP speaker and work just fine. When advertising these same prefixes to an eBGP speaker with a different AS, the metric's are not readvertised, and only a locally originated prefix maintains any sort of metric at all. Route's received from one of our remote iBGP speakers: routert# sh bgp ipv4 unicast neighbors 1.1.1.1 received-routes BGP table version is 0, local router ID is 2.2.2.2, vrf id 0 Default local pref 100, local AS 1234 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, = multipath, i internal, r RIB-failure, S Stale, R Removed Nexthop codes: @NNN nexthop's vrf id, < announce-nh-self Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path *> 0.0.0.0/0 1.1.1.1 100 100 0 i *> 1.2.3.0/20 1.1.1.1 100 100 0 i *> 2.3.4.0/21 1.1.1.1 100 100 0 5678 i *> 3.4.5.0/24 1.1.1.1 100 100 0 5678 i *> 5.6.7.0/22 1.1.1.1 102 100 0 5678 i *> 7.8.9.0/24 1.1.1.1 102 100 0 5678 i Total number of prefixes 6 Route's being correctly re-advertised and maintaining metric on re-advertisement to our local iBGP speaker (route-reflector-client): router# sh bgp ipv4 unicast neighbors 3.3.3.3 advertised-routes BGP table version is 4560509, local router ID is 2.2.2.2, vrf id 0 Default local pref 100, local AS 1234 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, = multipath, i internal, r RIB-failure, S Stale, R Removed Nexthop codes: @NNN nexthop's vrf id, < announce-nh-self Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path *> 1.2.3.0/20 1.1.1.1 100 100 0 i *> 1.2.7.0/23 2.2.2.2 0 100 32768 i *> 2.3.4.0/21 1.1.1.1 100 100 0 5678i *> 3.4.5.0/24 1.1.1.1 100 100 0 5678 i *> 5.6.7.0/22 1.1.1.1 102 100 0 5678 i *> 7.8.9.0/24 1.1.1.1 102 100 0 5678 i Total number of prefixes 6 Route's not maintaining their metric on re-advertisement to our local (to FRR) eBGP speaker: router# sh bgp ipv4 unicast neighbors 8.8.8.8 advertised-routes BGP table version is 4562244, local router ID is 2.2.2.2, vrf id 0 Default local pref 100, local AS 1234 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, = multipath, i internal, r RIB-failure, S Stale, R Removed Nexthop codes: @NNN nexthop's vrf id, < announce-nh-self Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path *> 1.2.3.0/20 0.0.0.0 100 0 i *> 1.2.7.0/23 0.0.0.0 0 32768 i *> 2.3.4.0/21 0.0.0.0 100 0 5678i *> 3.4.5.0/24 0.0.0.0 100 0 5678 i *> 5.6.7.0/22 0.0.0.0 100 0 5678 i *> 7.8.9.0/24 0.0.0.0 100 0 5678 i Total number of prefixes 6 Am I doing something wrong here? Otherwise a pretty straight forward BGP setup with some basic route-maps in and out, nothing too crazy. Is this expected behavior in FRR? Running latest available stable release, FRRouting 7.1RPKI. Thanks for any help.

2 1

BGP on FreeBSD: Feature Parity with Linux?
by Christoph 18 Oct '19

18 Oct '19

Hello, recently we started using BIRD as BGP daemon, but since we realized that BIRD has some (security) limitations on FreeBSD 12 [1] (when compared to Linux) we are looking for an alternative and consider switching to FRR 7.2 Therefore we wanted to verify that FRR does not have similar limitations. We found some platform specific information in the documentation here: http://docs.frrouting.org/en/latest/overview.html#supported-protocols-vs-pl… (vrrp has not been added yet) but would have some additional questions: - Should we expect any (notable) differences of FRR on FreeBSD when compared to Linux that go beyond what is documented on the page mentioned above? Is FRR on BSD a second class citizen? - Does FRR (BGP) support ECMP on FreeBSD? http://docs.frrouting.org/en/latest/installation.html#cmdoption-configure-e… - What memory footprint should we expect on an FRR BGP router with two neighbors with a bgp fulltable each? - Does FRR support privilege dropping (on FreeBSD) or does it run as root entirely? I see zebra and bgpd runs as user 'frr' by default on FreeBSD, so I can answer this one myself (yes it drops privileges to a non-root user). answered via the documentation: - Does FRR's RPKI support include support for re-validation of affected routes after an RPKI ROA update or has it the same limitation as BIRD that requires re-validating all routes? [2] According to http://docs.frrouting.org/en/latest/bgp.html#prefix-origin-validation-using… this appears to be supported: > Updates from the RPKI cache servers are directly applied and path > selection is updated accordingly. (Soft reconfiguration must be > enabled for this to work). thanks, Christoph [1] https://bird.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/2019-October/013845.html [2] https://bird.network.cz/?get_doc&v=20&f=bird-6.html#ss6.13 > BIRD should re-validate all of affected routes after RPKI update by > RFC 6811, but we don't support it yet! You can use a BIRD's client > command reload in bgp_protocol_name for manual call of revalidation > of all routes.

2 1

Should I remove LL IPv6 addresses from BGP peering?
by Rudy Rucker 16 Oct '19

16 Oct '19

When I do 'show bgp', I see multipath on all my routes... should I try to trim down table and only have non-LinkLocal addresses? Is this configurable in bgpd.conf, or should I remove the linkLocal from the interaface? Example: *= 2001::/32 2001:504:30::ba00:6939:1 0 108 0 6939 i * fe80::ce4e:24ff:fe1f:28d3 0 108 0 6939 i *> fe80::ce4e:24ff:fe1f:28d3 0 108 0 6939 i (IX has localpref of 108) Thanks for pointers on best practices with IPv6 and BGP, Rudy

2 1