- frog - lists.frrouting.org

FRRouting on Juniper EX series switches
by Hansen, Christoffer 28 Jun '19

28 Jun '19

FROG & R.W., After reading [0] about FRRouting on JUNOS. I was wondering if it is possible to install JUNOS on a recently-ish EX switch series device? (E.g. 3300/3400) It is the same Operating System on top. Thou different hardware and chipsets beneth, compared to MX's. The article shows the example with a vMX and mentioning references to the Trio chipset used in series of MX routers by Juniper. /Christoffer [0]: https://forums.juniper.net/t5/Industry-Solutions-and-Trends/FRRouting-on-Ju…

2 2

staticd blackhole recursive not allowing more specific routes to work
by Patrick Boutilier 25 Jun '19

25 Jun '19

FRR 7.1 CentOS 7.6.1810 With this in staticd.conf ip route 10.1.0.0/16 Null0 everything in 10.1.0.0/16 gets blackholed even if there is a more specific route. Is this normal behaviour? If so, is there a way to turn off recursive? In vtysh: # show ip route Codes: K - kernel route, C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, O - OSPF, I - IS-IS, B - BGP, E - EIGRP, N - NHRP, T - Table, v - VNC, V - VNC-Direct, A - Babel, D - SHARP, F - PBR, f - OpenFabric, > - selected route, * - FIB route, q - queued route, r - rejected route S>* 10.1.0.0/16 [1/0] unreachable (blackhole), 00:07:41 S> 10.1.1.0/24 [1/0] via 10.1.2.1 (recursive), 00:07:41 * unreachable, 00:07:41 C>* 10.1.2.0/24 is directly connected, eth0, 00:06:59 From bash: # ip r s|grep hole blackhole 10.1.0.0/16 proto 196 metric 20 blackhole 10.1.1.0/24 proto 196 metric 20

2 4

No "ip route" command in zebra
by Patrick Boutilier 23 Jun '19

23 Jun '19

FRR 7.1 CentOS 7.6.1810 Router(config)# ip forwarding Turn on IP forwarding import-table import routes from non-main kernel table multicast Multicast options nht Filter Next Hop tracking route resolution prefix-list Build a prefix list protocol Filter routing info exchanged between zebra and protocol Do you have to use staticd now for static routes?

2 2

Configured AFI/SAFIs do not overlap
by Andre Roberge 19 Jun '19

19 Jun '19

** *Hi everyone, * * I am new to frr, sorry if this is not the right place for this question. I’m trying to peer with my providers in IPv4 and IPv6, the IPv4 part is working great but I get an error on IPv6. Any help would be greatly appriciated ! Andre Roberge andre.roberge(a)maskicom.net 2019/06/19 09:54:45 BGP: 2607:fa48:f000:1b::1 OPEN has Prefixlist (old) ORF capability as Both for afi/safi: 2/1 2019/06/19 09:54:45 BGP: [EC 33554451] 2607:fa48:f000:1b::1 [Error] Configured AFI/SAFIs do not overlap with received MP capabilities 2019/06/19 09:54:45 BGP: %NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor 2607:fa48:f000:1b::1 2/7 (OPEN Message Error/Unsupported Capability) 6 bytes 01 04 00 02 00 01 2019/06/19 09:54:45 BGP: [EC 33554451] bgp_process_packet: BGP OPEN receipt failed for peer: 2607:fa48:f000:1b::1 2019/06/19 09:54:45 BGP: 2607:fa48:f000:1b::1 [FSM] BGP_Stop (OpenSent->Idle), fd 23 2019/06/19 09:54:45 BGP: bgp_fsm_change_status : vrf 0, established_peers 1 2019/06/19 09:54:45 BGP: 2607:fa48:f000:1b::1 went from OpenSent to Deleted Here is the Router Config Current configuration: ! frr version 7.0RPKI frr defaults traditional hostname vr1.maskicom.io log file /var/log/frr/bgpd.log no ip forwarding no ipv6 forwarding ! debug bgp keepalives debug bgp neighbor-events debug bgp nht debug bgp update-groups debug bgp updates in debug bgp updates out debug bgp zebra ! router bgp 397033 bgp router-id XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX bgp log-neighbor-changes bgp deterministic-med neighbor XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX remote-as 5769 neighbor XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX password XXXXXX neighbor XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX interface eth0 neighbor XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX update-source eth0 neighbor xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx::x remote-as 5769 neighbor xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx::x interface eth0 neighbor xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx::x update-source eth0 ! address-family ipv4 unicast network 23.154.32.0/24 network 207.253.254.0/24 neighbor XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX remove-private-AS neighbor XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX prefix-list in-filter in exit-address-family ! address-family ipv6 unicast network 2602:fe36::/36 neighbor 2607:fa48:f000:1b::1 remove-private-AS exit-address-family ! ip prefix-list in-filter seq 5 deny 0.0.0.0/0 ip prefix-list in-filter seq 10 deny 0.0.0.0/8 le 32 ip prefix-list in-filter seq 15 deny 10.0.0.0/8 le 32 ip prefix-list in-filter seq 20 deny 100.64.0.0/10 le 32 ip prefix-list in-filter seq 25 deny 127.0.0.0/8 le 32 ip prefix-list in-filter seq 30 deny 169.254.0.0/16 le 32 ip prefix-list in-filter seq 35 deny 172.16.0.0/12 le 32 ip prefix-list in-filter seq 40 deny 192.0.0.0/24 le 32 ip prefix-list in-filter seq 45 deny 192.0.2.0/24 le 32 ip prefix-list in-filter seq 50 deny 192.168.0.0/16 le 32 ip prefix-list in-filter seq 55 deny 198.18.0.0/15 le 32 ip prefix-list in-filter seq 60 deny 198.51.100.0/24 le 32 ip prefix-list in-filter seq 65 deny 203.0.113.0/24 le 32 ip prefix-list in-filter seq 70 deny 224.0.0.0/3 le 32 ip prefix-list in-filter seq 75 deny 0.0.0.0/0 ge 25 ip prefix-list in-filter seq 80 permit 0.0.0.0/0 le 32 ! line vty ! end *

3 2

Re: [FROG] Multiple routing tables and BGP
by Philippe Guibert 17 Jun '19

17 Jun '19

Hi Julien, > We have a use case we don't know how to handle with BGP/FRR. > > # Our problem > Since we don't use VRFs, announce connected links to customers is easy > with prefix-list (ex: 192.168.2.0/24 ge 24 for custA). > But we don't understand how to not use static default route in our > routing tables and inject BGP routes learned from customers in each > routing table. There is a pull request [0] in progress you may be interested in: [0] https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/4265 It adds a new vty command that permits exporting BGP entries to a given routing table. route-map custa_to_link permit 10 set table 302 ! route-map custb_to_link permit 10 set table 303 ! router bgp <> [..] address-family ipv4 unicast neighbor 10.0.0.2 route-map custa_to_link in neighbor 10.0.0.6 route-map custb_to_link in [..] This should help you in solving the BGP exportation to the desired table identifier, without using VRFs. Thanks, Philippe

2 1

Multiple routing tables and BGP
by Julien RICHER 17 Jun '19

17 Jun '19

Hi FRR users, We have a use case we don't know how to handle with BGP/FRR. We need to share : right side : a L3 network with dialup links - without VRF - with BGP in order to learn connected links left side : 3 customers - now : static routing without BGP - futur : with BGP in order to announce their connected links and add redundancy For now, we use multiple routing table and rules in order to isolate customers. ## Examples # Customers interconnexions CustA 10.0.0.2/30 CustB 10.0.0.6/30 # DialUP links pools CustA pool 192.168.2.0/24 CustB pool 192.168.3.0/24 # Multiple routing tables echo 302 custa >> /etc/iproute2/rt_tables echo 303 custb >> /etc/iproute2/rt_tables # Default route ip route add default via 10.0.0.2 dev eth0 table custa ip route add default via 10.0.0.6 dev eth0 table custb # Rules for isolation ip rule add from 192.168.2.0/24 lookup custa ip rule add from 192.168.3.0/24 lookup custb # 2 dialup link for CustA CustA Link1 WAN = 192.168.2.0/32 CustA Link1 LAN = 192.168.2.128/29 CustA Link2 WAN = 192.168.2.1/32 CustA Link2 LAN = 192.168.2.136/29 # Our problem This solution is good for a POC with static routing on customer's side, but we need to use BGP with customers in order to : - provide redundancy - announce its connected dialup links to each customer Since we don't use VRFs, announce connected links to customers is easy with prefix-list (ex: 192.168.2.0/24 ge 24 for custA). But we don't understand how to not use static default route in our routing tables and inject BGP routes learned from customers in each routing table. Is FRR able to inject peer's routes in a specific table without VRFs ? If needed, we can move to VRF on customer side, but since dialup network is not VRF aware, links routes are in vrf0 and we don't understand how to handle it. Is there a solution for this case ? Maybe a route-map would permit to push learned routes of a peer in a specific table ? Thank you, Julien

1 0

BGP L3VPN support
by Heidi net 05 Jun '19

05 Jun '19

Hello, I am trying to migrate from IOX to FRR4.0. I have a simple configuration of 2 VRFs: red and blue. No VRF route leaking is needed. I know VRF route leaking was added to FRR5.0. But since I don’t do that. Can FRR4.0 be used to - Configure 2 VRFs for routes, attach different RD/RT to routes, and advertise routes into corresponding VPNs with FRR4.0? - Any configuration examples? Below is the current Cisco configuration. ip vrf red rd 100:101 route-target export 200:101 route-target import 200:101 ! ip vrf blue rd 100:201 route-target export 200:201 route-target import 200:201 ! interface Loopback101 ip vrf forwarding red ! interface Loopback102 ip vrf forwarding blue ! router bgp 100 neighbor 10.10.10.2 remote-as 200 neighbor 10.10.10.2 update-source Loopback0 ! address-family vpnv4 neighbor 10.10.10.2 activate neighbor 10.10.10.2 send-community both exit-address-family ! address-family ipv4 vrf red redistribute connected exit-address-family ! address-family ipv4 vrf blue redistribute connected exit-address-family thanks - Heidi

3 6

PIM-BSM implementation in FRR
by Donald Sharp 05 Jun '19

05 Jun '19

All - Recently an implementatation of PIM-BSM was pushed into the master branch of FRR. This first release of this feature is slightly limited in it's scope, in that PIM routers can listen and respond to BSM PIM messages but cannot self-elect to make themselves an RP. By default this functionality is turned on. To turn it off issue a `no ip pim bsm` command from the cli. Further documentation can be found at http://docs.frrouting.org/en/latest/pim.html I'd like to thank Saravanan, Sarita and Rajesh for their work on getting this in. thanks! donald

2 2

Protobuf (FPM) usage survey
by David Lamparter 21 May '19

21 May '19

Hello FRR users and developers, since some extensions to the FPM interface are currently happening, it'd be nice to know how much the Protobuf interface is used. We know the netlink encoding is well used, but we don't have data for Protobuf. If you're using **Protobuf** FPM, please send a mail (in private if necessary.) Again just to be clear: this is about Protobuf FPM, NOT Netlink FPM. Cheers, -David

1 0

Announcing support for VRRP
by Quentin Young 21 May '19

21 May '19

Greetings operators, A few days ago, support for VRRP (Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol) was merged into master. VRRP is used to provide router redundancy on LANs. FRRouting supports versions 2 and 3 of the protocol. Our next release will not have this new protocol. It will ship in the subsequent release, around September/October. In the meantime it is available in our master Git branch. RFCs: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5798 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5798> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3768 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3768> FRRouting documentation: http://docs.frrouting.org/en/latest/vrrp.html <http://docs.frrouting.org/en/latest/vrrp.html> Big thanks to everyone who worked with me on this new protocol daemon! Quentin

3 3