Test was attempting to test the 60.0.0.0 route but was querying
10.0.0.3 and ignoring the result. Let's fix it.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@nvidia.com>
The flag for telling BGP that a route is expected to be installed
first before notifying a peer was always being set upon receipt
of a path that could be accepted as bestpath. This is not correct:
imagine that you have a peer sending you a route and you have a
network statement that covers the same route. Irrelevant if the
network statement would win the flag on the dest was being set
in bgp_update. Thus you could get into a situation where
the network statement path wins but since the flag is set on
the node, it will never be announced to a peer.
Let's just move the setting of the flag into bgp_zebra_announce
and _withdraw. In _announce set the flag to TRUE when suppress-fib
is enabled. In _withdraw just always unset the flag as that a withdrawal
does not need to wait for rib removal before announcing. This will
cover the case when a network statement is added after the route has
been learned from a peer.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@nvidia.com>
Ensure that the minimum time spent run and expecting is
5 seconds. Heavy load is not a reason to fail a test.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@nvidia.com>
When bgp is using `bgp suppress-fib-pending` and the end
operator is using network statements, bgp was not sending
the network'ed prefix'es to it's peers. Fix this.
Also update the test cases for bgp_suppress_fib to test
this new corner case( I am sure that there are going to
be others that will need to be added ).
Fixes: #12112
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@nvidia.com>
Currently the Wait for Install code ( bgp_suppress_fib ) does
not properly handle two states from zebra: ROUTE_INSTALL_FAILED
and BETTER_ADMIN_DISTANCE_WON. Pre this change the WFI code
would just never notify our peers about a route install failure
but more is needed. In the ROUTE_INSTALL_FAILED and the
BETTER_ADMIN_DISTANCE_WON we need to notify our peers with
a withdrawal about the route, else we will continue to
draw traffic to us when we cannot legally do so.
Why is this needed? In either case imagine that we've already
received a bgp route, installed it and sent to our peers.
In the Better admin distance won case, say a static route is installed
at this point in time we must stop advertising the route through
us since we are not installed. As such a withdrawal must be sent.
In the ROUTE_INSTALL_FAILED case, the code was not properly handling
the situation where we have Route A, it was successfully installed
and then we received a update to Route A that was attempted to be
installed but failed. In this case we also need to send a withdrawal
Finally update the bgp_suppress_fib topotest to test both of these
situations.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@nvidia.com>
