Hi Donald, Thanks for your feedback; some more comments below. Donald Sharp wrote on 2020/03/26 08:48:22:
Assuming that the intent is to continue to support route server functionality within FRR, I have a couple of questions. Is my approach of specifying route-server-client/attribute-unchanged correct or am I missing something that makes FRR's bgpd work like quagga's bgpd? And are there plans to update the route server documentation to match the current implementation? We've been using bgpd for many years; I'd like to continue doing so with a non-orphaned version.
I'm not sure what to recommend you do here as that this is normal EBGP behavior and should be expected. We do not have enough data about your setup to fully recommend anything.
The FRR behavior with route-server-client seems to be a change from the way it was handled in quagga. Perhaps this was discussed on the FRR mailing lists, but I haven't been able to track it down and I again don't see anything obvious in the changelogs. Based on previous behavior of quagga (and even going back to the RSd derivative of GateD in the mid-90s) my expectation is that an EBGP speaker operating in route server mode 1) would not install learned routes in its own FIB (FRR handles this correctly) and 2) would, unless explicitly overridden, pass BGP updates transparently between clients (FRR does not appear to do this, at least with next-hop). I'm not saying the FRR behavior is incorrect, just that it's unexpected. I'd be interested in hearing other's views on the preferred behavior of route-server-client.
We'd love to have you use FRR, Feel free to join our slack (https://frrouting.org ) and click on the slack button and I'll see what I can do to help you get up and running.
Thanks, I'll take you up on this next week. Michael