Add a new test to cover the new features for multi hop BFD peers:
- Test that we correctly receive TTL from protocol integration.
- Check minimum TTL usage and 'show' command.
- Check for passive mode.
Signed-off-by: Rafael Zalamena <rzalamena@opensourcerouting.org>
The commit `bfdd: simplify and remove duplicated code` fixed a problem
that was causing the protocol configuration to override the user
configuration.
In this test case: the peer was configured to be disabled (default is
`shutdown`) and the test was expecting it to get activated (`no shutdown`)
when the protocol converged. I changed the peer default state to
`no shutdown`, however another way to get the same effect is to
configure the protocol to use a profile or don't configure a peer at all
(and use the defaults).
Signed-off-by: Rafael Zalamena <rzalamena@opensourcerouting.org>
Initial BFD protocol implementation had a hard coded value of maximum 5
hops, now we have a configurable hop amount with a safe default of 1
hop.
Signed-off-by: Rafael Zalamena <rzalamena@opensourcerouting.org>
The passive mode is briefly described in the RFC 5880 Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (BFD), Section 6.1. Overview:
> A system may take either an Active role or a Passive role in session
> initialization. A system taking the Active role MUST send BFD
> Control packets for a particular session, regardless of whether it
> has received any BFD packets for that session. A system taking the
> Passive role MUST NOT begin sending BFD packets for a particular
> session until it has received a BFD packet for that session, and thus
> has learned the remote system's discriminator value. At least one
> system MUST take the Active role (possibly both). The role that a
> system takes is specific to the application of BFD, and is outside
> the scope of this specification.
Signed-off-by: Rafael Zalamena <rzalamena@opensourcerouting.org>
Give the FRR users some examples of gRPC usage in scripts to let them
start experimenting with the new configuration interface provided by
YANG/northbound.
Signed-off-by: Rafael Zalamena <rzalamena@opensourcerouting.org>
Suppose you have more than 2 addresses on a pim interface:
lo up default 10.255.0.1/32
10.255.0.101/32
10.255.0.254/32
A `show ip pim int lo` gives us this:
eva# show ip pim interface lo
Interface : lo
State : up
Address : 10.255.0.1 (primary)
10.255.0.101/32
When we go look at the code that pulls secondary addresses in
we are using a prefix_cmp to know if we know about a secondary already
but were expecting true values instead of -1/0/1 being returned.
Modify code so that pim sees all secondary addresses
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com>
Router Information are contained in opaque LSAs and when such a LSA
is received a new SR node for the advertising router is created.
However, the RI related data is currently not set when such a SR node
already exists. This can happen when e.g. link and prefix information
arrive before the RI and therefore an SR node is created.
This is now fixed by setting the data everytime the RI is received,
independent of the SR node already existing or not.
Signed-off-by: GalaxyGorilla <sascha@netdef.org>
* Removed old timer thread resets, since this has been taken care of
after execution of the threads by the thread_fetch function in
lib/thread.c for quite some time now.
Signed-off-by: David Schweizer <dschweizer@opensourcerouting.org>
For the sake of Segment Routing (SR) and Traffic Engineering (TE)
Policies there's a need for additional infrastructure within zebra.
The infrastructure in this PR is supposed to manage such policies
in terms of installing binding SIDs and LSPs. Also it is capable of
managing MPLS labels using the label manager, keeping track of
nexthops (for resolving labels) and notifying interested parties about
changes of a policy/LSP state. Further it enables a route map mechanism
for BGP and SR-TE colors such that learned BGP routes can be mapped
onto SR-TE Policies.
This PR does not introduce any usable features by now, it is just
infrastructure for other upcoming PRs which will introduce 'pathd',
a new SR-TE daemon.
Co-authored-by: Renato Westphal <renato@opensourcerouting.org>
Co-authored-by: GalaxyGorilla <sascha@netdef.org>
Signed-off-by: Sebastien Merle <sebastien@netdef.org>
For allocating a new label range the label manager will loop
the existing label chunks and compare the start and end labels
with the label range in question. In case a label range should
be re-allocated to the existing label chunk, the end label
of the chunk is not honored correctly, e.g. the new label
range has to be a true subset of the existing label chunk.
This is very easy reproducable by re-allocating a single label.
e.g. a label range of size 1.
This problem is fixed by allowing the mentioned 'end' labels to
be equal.
Signed-off-by: GalaxyGorilla <sascha@netdef.org>
The vxlan `ip... ` command is failing because we are passing in
`no learning` and that is failing.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com>
Add a bit of a clue to the test_evpn_type5_topo1.py script
to what dut is failing, when things go south.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com>
