- frog - lists.frrouting.org

question
by Daniel Guerri 03 Jul '18

03 Jul '18

Can somebody help me to install FRR on a Ubuntu Server. Has somebody a step by step to do it? Best regards Daniel

3 2

Filter connected routes from being learned ?
by Brandon Applegate 29 Jun '18

29 Jun '18

Hello, I am trying to prevent FRR from picking up a route - let’s call it “mgmt”. These are Ubuntu 16.04 hosts, so I’m using /etc/network/interfaces. I’m using some manual post-up commands to take one of my NICs and put it into the “mgmt” table (already added to /etc/iproute2/rt_tables). This is working as intended. The issue is that FRR is still picking this up as a connected route. I don’t know enough about the innards of FRR, but I’m guessing it’s picking it up from the interface structure in the kernel - as my route table commands have expunged it from the global/default table. So on with my real question - is there a way I can filter this ? I had thought/hoped it would be this: http://docs.frrouting.org/en/latest/zebra.html#zebra-route-filtering Either that doesn’t do what I had hoped - or I’m configuring it wrong. My thought process was to make a PL with a permit matching my mgmt route (10.255.0.0/16) - and a route-map with a deny matching on the PL. Then I would ‘ip protocol connected route-map DENY-MGMT’. I’ve tried this, and restarted FRR, but no matter what - this route keeps finding it’s way back in as “connected”. Any pointers would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -- Brandon Applegate - CCIE 10273 PGP Key fingerprint: 0641 D285 A36F 533A 73E5 2541 4920 533C C616 703A "For thousands of years men dreamed of pacts with demons. Only now are such things possible."

2 4

Recursive lookup through BGP-LU route
by Carl Baldwin 22 Jun '18

22 Jun '18

Hi, We're experimenting with BGP-LU and frr in our lab. We have two host machines running frr. Each is connected to two TOR switches through their eth0 and eth1 links (four TORs total). Those are connected through another pair of switches. We have configured BGP-LU to distribute MPLS labels over ebpg throughout. Connectivity between loopback addresses on the two hosts works well at this point. Then, I created some namespaces in the hosts and gave them addresses. We use BGP to announce those addresses as /32 routes with the loopback address as the next hop. The route between namespaces on the two machines is recursively resolved so that they push the same MPLS label as the path to the other loopback. This all works well to start off with and we did some iperf runs that showed pretty good results. ECMP was working because the bandwidth was higher than any single link. After some link state changes, we seemed to lose the connection. However, pings between the loopback addresses still worked. After some time, we noticed that the MPLS labels in the routes to the namespace addresses (/32s) were different than the label in the route to the loopback. Since the former routes are resolved recursively using the latter, the labels should always be the same. Could this be a bug in FRR? Shouldn't the routes to the namespaces be invalidated or updated as soon as the route it was based on changed? The traffic between namespaces is getting dropped because the switch doesn't know about the label being pushed by the host. Any insight would be very helpful. Thanks! Carl Baldwin PS Below are a few screen captures that I copied before restarting FRR to get things back. Here are /32 routes received. 10.112.128.1 is the loopback on the other host. The four routes are to four namespaces on the other host. lab1r2u05# show ip bgp neighbor 10.112.97.1 received-routes BGP table version is 0, local router ID is 10.112.128.2 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, = multipath, i internal, r RIB-failure, S Stale, R Removed Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path *> 10.224.12.10/32 10.112.128.1 0 4206900001 4206909998 i *> 10.224.12.15/32 10.112.128.1 0 4206900001 4206909998 i *> 10.224.12.70/32 10.112.128.1 0 4206900001 4206909998 i *> 10.224.12.75/32 10.112.128.1 0 4206900001 4206909998 i Total number of prefixes 4 Below is the routing table as it looked when we lost connectivity. Notice that the mpls label for the loopback route is 306592 via eth1 but the label for the four namespace addresses is 306576. root@lab1r2u05:~/ovs-droplets# ip route default via 10.112.2.132 dev eth2 10.112.2.128/25 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 10.112.2.145 10.112.128.1 encap mpls 306592 via 10.112.129.9 dev eth1 proto 186 metric 20 10.112.129.8/30 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 10.112.129.10 10.112.129.12/30 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.112.129.14 10.224.12.10 encap mpls 306576 via 10.112.129.9 dev eth1 proto 186 metric 20 10.224.12.15 encap mpls 306576 via 10.112.129.9 dev eth1 proto 186 metric 20 10.224.12.70 encap mpls 306576 via 10.112.129.9 dev eth1 proto 186 metric 20 10.224.12.75 encap mpls 306576 via 10.112.129.9 dev eth1 proto 186 metric 20 10.224.12.20 dev br0 scope link 10.224.12.25 dev br0 scope link 10.224.12.80 dev br0 scope link 10.224.12.85 dev br0 scope link

1 0

how to configure mpls l2 and l3 circuit
by Sanjoy 12 Jun '18

12 Jun '18

Hi, I have faced mpls configuration. Is it possible to configure mpls l2 and l3 cirucit. Regards Sanjoy

1 0

how to configure mpl l2 and l3 circuit
by Sanjoy 12 Jun '18

12 Jun '18

Hi, I have faced mpls configuration. Is is possible to configure mpls l2 and l3 cirucit. Regards Sanjoy

1 0

FRR not adding kernel default route
by Felipe Arturo Polanco 09 Jun '18

09 Jun '18

Hi, I have a strange issue where FRR does not pull the kernel default route into its routing table, it does accept any other static route that is not 0.0.0.0/0 into its table: FRR routing table: FRR03# 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, > - selected route, * - FIB route C>* 1.10.1.3/32 is directly connected, lo, 00:58:38 C>* 192.168.17.0/24 is directly connected, ens37, 00:58:38 C>* 192.168.44.0/24 is directly connected, ens33, 00:58:38 Linux routing table: [root@FRR03 ~]# ip route show default via 192.168.44.2 dev ens33 proto static metric 100 192.168.17.0/24 dev ens37 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.17.137 metric 100 192.168.44.0/24 dev ens33 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.44.145 FRR show running output: FRR03# sh run Building configuration... Current configuration: ! frr version 4.1-dev-MyOwnFRRVersion frr defaults traditional hostname FRR03 log syslog ! interface lo ip address 1.10.1.3/32 ! line vty ! end *** Adding static route in Linux *** [root@FRR03 ~]# ip route add 172.16.25.0/24 via 192.168.44.2 [root@FRR03 ~]# vtysh FRR03# 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, > - selected route, * - FIB route C>* 1.10.1.3/32 is directly connected, lo, 01:01:15 K>* 172.16.25.0/24 [0/0] via 192.168.44.2, ens33, 00:00:05 C>* 192.168.17.0/24 is directly connected, ens37, 01:01:15 C>* 192.168.44.0/24 is directly connected, ens33, 01:01:15 Due to this issue FRR protocols cannot work correctly eg: BGP cannot peer with a neighbor that is not on a directly connected network or added statically. Does anyone have an idea of what this could be? Thanks,

2 1

DMVPN NHRP assitance
by Felipe Arturo Polanco 19 May '18

19 May '18

Hi, I'm having trouble getting DMVPN to work in FRR. I followed this guide: https://wiki.alpinelinux.org/wiki/Dynamic_Multipoint_VPN_(DMVPN)_Phase_3_wi… I installed patched strongswan as per the instruction in the README file: https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/blob/master/nhrpd/README.nhrpd But still I cannot figure out how to establish a connection between a hub and a spoke. There is this error in the logs on both hub and spoke: May 09 23:24:19 FRR01 charon-systemd[107289]: vici initiate 'dmvpn' May 09 23:24:19 FRR01 nhrpd[107823]: VICI: Key 'success'='no' May 09 23:24:19 FRR01 charon-systemd[107289]: unable to resolve %any, initiate aborted May 09 23:24:19 FRR01 nhrpd[107823]: VICI: Key 'errmsg'='establishing CHILD_SA 'dmvpn' failed' May 09 23:24:19 FRR01 charon-systemd[107289]: tried to checkin and delete nonexisting IKE_SA May 09 23:24:19 FRR01 nhrpd[107823]: VICI: strongSwan: establishing CHILD_SA 'dmvpn' failed Spoke: FRR01# sh dmvpn Src Dst Flags SAs Identity 192.168.17.131 192.168.17.135 n 0 FRR01# sh ip nhrp Iface Type Protocol NBMA Flags Identity gre1 local 10.255.255.2 - - interface gre1 ip nhrp holdtime 3600 ip nhrp network-id 1 ip nhrp nhs dynamic nbma 192.168.17.135 ip nhrp registration no-unique ip nhrp shortcut no link-detect tunnel protection vici profile dmvpn tunnel source ens37 ------- Hub: FRR_RR01# sh dmvpn Src Dst Flags SAs Identity FRR_RR01# sh ip nhrp Iface Type Protocol NBMA Flags Identity gre1 local 10.255.255.1 - - interface gre1 ip nhrp holdtime 3600 ip nhrp network-id 1 ip nhrp nhs dynamic nbma 192.168.17.135 ip nhrp redirect ip nhrp registration no-unique ip nhrp shortcut no link-detect tunnel protection vici profile dmvpn tunnel source ens37 --- /etc/swanctl/swanctl.conf [root@FRR_RR01 ~]# cat /etc/swanctl/swanctl.conf connections { dmvpn { version = 2 pull = no mobike = no dpd_delay = 15 dpd_timeout = 30 fragmentation = yes unique = replace rekey_time = 4h reauth_time = 13h proposals = aes256-sha512-ecp384 local { auth = psk id = hub } remote { auth = psk } children { dmvpn { esp_proposals = aes256-sha512-ecp384 local_ts = dynamic[gre] remote_ts = dynamic[gre] inactivity = 90m rekey_time = 100m mode = transport dpd_action = clear reqid = 1 } } } } --- Any idea what could be wrong?

1 2

getting "closing connection to zebra because of an I/O error!"
by Edvinas K 17 May '18

17 May '18

Hello, i'm using Centos 7 and FRR 4.0 and i'm getting "closing connection to zebra because of an I/O error!" when doing something in vtysh terminal. Any ways to prevent this ? Thanks

2 2

features support in FRR 4.0.
by Edvinas K 16 May '18

16 May '18

Hello, can I get a confirmation that these 3 features are supported in FRR 4.0 ? BGP: BGP Custom distance command bgp Maximum-paths OSPFv2: ospf multiple processes Thanks

2 1

OSPFv2 multiple processes
by Edvinas K 16 May '18

16 May '18

Hello, Do FRR 4.0 supports OSPFv2 multiple processes ?

1 0