proxmox-mirrors/mirror_frr
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.proxmox.com/git/mirror_frr synced 2025-08-06 06:14:35 +00:00
Code Issues Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

vrrpd: allow user to set priority = 255

Browse Source 
Too many problems with implicit ownership determination via duplicate
address assignment. Will revisit that in the future. For now, allow user
to specify 255 as a priority value. This is functionally no different
than any other priority value; it just serves as a self-documenting way
of saying you want one router to always be master.

Signed-off-by: Quentin Young <qlyoung@cumulusnetworks.com>
This commit is contained in:
Quentin Young 2019-03-04 17:27:55 +00:00
parent 48cd8f1398
commit 2f1fc30fd2
2 changed files with 27 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

29
vrrpd/vrrp.c
View File

@ -107,12 +107,16 @@ static void vrrp_recalculate_timers(struct vrrp_router *r)
* Determines if a VRRP router is the owner of the specified address.
*
* The determining factor for whether an interface is the address owner is
* simply whether the address is assigned to the VRRP subinterface by someone
* simply whether the address is assigned to the VRRP base interface by someone
* other than vrrpd.
*
* This function should always return the correct answer regardless of
* master/backup status.
*
* ifp
* The interface to check owernship of. This should be the base interface of
* a VRRP router.
*
* vr
* Virtual Router
*
@ -121,6 +125,23 @@ static void vrrp_recalculate_timers(struct vrrp_router *r)
*/
static bool vrrp_is_owner(struct interface *ifp, struct ipaddr *addr)
{
/*
* This code sanity checks implicit ownership configuration. Ideally,
* the way we determine address ownership status for this VRRP router
* is by looking at whether our VIPs are also assigned to the base
* interface, and therefore count as "real" addresses. This frees the
* user from having to manually configure priority 255 to indicate
* address ownership. However, this means one of the VIPs will be used
* as the source address for VRRP advertisements, which in turn means
* that other VRRP routers will be receiving packets with a source
* address they themselves have. This causes lots of different issues
* so for now we're disabling this and forcing the user to configure
* priority 255 to indicate ownership.
*/
return false;
#if 0
struct prefix p;
p.family = IS_IPADDR_V4(addr) ? AF_INET : AF_INET6;
@ -128,6 +149,7 @@ static bool vrrp_is_owner(struct interface *ifp, struct ipaddr *addr)
memcpy(&p.u, &addr->ip, sizeof(addr->ip));
return !!connected_lookup_prefix_exact(ifp, &p);
#endif
}
/*
@ -1411,13 +1433,14 @@ static int vrrp_startup(struct vrrp_router *r)
char ipbuf[INET6_ADDRSTRLEN];
inet_ntop(r->family, &primary->ip.addr, ipbuf, sizeof(ipbuf));
if (vrrp_is_owner(r->vr->ifp, primary)) {
if (r->vr->priority == VRRP_PRIO_MASTER
|| vrrp_is_owner(r->vr->ifp, primary)) {
r->priority = VRRP_PRIO_MASTER;
vrrp_recalculate_timers(r);
zlog_info(
VRRP_LOGPFX VRRP_LOGPFX_VRID
"%s owns primary Virtual Router IP %s; electing self as Master",
"%s has priority set to 255 or owns primary Virtual Router IP %s; electing self as Master",
r->vr->vrid, r->vr->ifp->name, ipbuf);
}

2
vrrpd/vrrp_vty.c
View File

@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ DEFPY(vrrp_shutdown,
DEFPY(vrrp_priority,
vrrp_priority_cmd,
"[no] vrrp (1-255)$vrid priority (1-254)",
"[no] vrrp (1-255)$vrid priority (1-255)",
NO_STR
VRRP_STR
VRRP_VRID_STR