Before this patch, we always passed `struct attr` for NLRI_UPDATE, but if we
have a situation with treat-as-withdraw (for example: malformed attribute, or
using a command like `neighbor path-attribute treat-as-withdraw`) the route
MUST be withdrawn form the BGP table.
Hence, we MUST pass attr as NULL, in this case we already have this check
under NLRI_ATTR_ARG() macro, just reuse it properly.
Signed-off-by: Donatas Abraitis <donatas@opensourcerouting.org>
Before this patch, we always passed `struct attr` for NLRI_UPDATE, but if we
have a situation with treat-as-withdraw (for example: malformed attribute, or
using a command like `neighbor path-attribute treat-as-withdraw`) the route
MUST be withdrawn form the BGP table.
Hence, we MUST pass attr as NULL, in this case we already have this check
under NLRI_ATTR_ARG() macro, just reuse it properly.
Signed-off-by: Donatas Abraitis <donatas@opensourcerouting.org>
The -Wswitch-enum will allow the compiler to warn us
when a developer creates a switch over a enum and is
using `default:` when they should be iterating over
every enum
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@nvidia.com>
The function ecommunity_str2com_internal appears to want to handle
the ecommunity_token_rt6 enum but skips over it. Commit
9a659715df tried to add this but I really
don't see how this is going to behave correctly. Add the
ecommunity_token_rt6 case to the switch statement so it is handled
appropriately?
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@nvidia.com>
The function ecommunity_str2com_internal appears to want to handle
the ecommunity_token_rt6 enum but skips over it. Commit
9a659715df tried to add this but I really
don't see how this is going to behave correctly. Add the
ecommunity_token_rt6 case to the switch statement so it is handled
appropriately?
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@nvidia.com>
The test was sometimes failing around the sleep(4) for
waiting for the routes to be installed. Instead of blindly
sleeping let's check to see that the routes are actually
there in zebra and then continue on.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@nvidia.com>
There existed the idea, from Volta, that a nexthop group would not have
the same nexthops installed -vs- what FRR actually sent down. The
dplane would notify you.
With the addition of 06525c4f99
the code was put behind a bit of a wall controlled the usage
of it.
The flag ROUTE_ENTRY_USE_FIB_NHG flag was being used
to control which set was being sent up to concerned parties
in nexthop tracking. Put this flag behind the wall and
do not necessarily set it when we receive a data plane
notification about a route being installed or not.
Fixes: #12706
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@nvidia.com>
