This should never happen; no need to debug guard it and it's not a
warning, if this isn't working then NHT is not working at all.
Signed-off-by: Quentin Young <qlyoung@nvidia.com>
This function is poorly named; it's really used to allow the FSM to
decide the next valid state based on whether a peer has valid /
reachable nexthops as determined by NHT or BFD.
Signed-off-by: Quentin Young <qlyoung@nvidia.com>
since the addition of srte_color to the comparison for bgp nexthops
it is possible to have several nexthops per prefix but since zebra
only sores a per prefix registration we should not unregister for
nh notifications for a prefix unti all the nexthops for that prefix
have been deleted. Otherwise we can get into a deadlock situation
where BGP thinks we have registered but we have unregistered from zebra.
Signed-off-by: Pat Ruddy <pat@voltanet.io>
Extend the NHT code so that only the affected BGP routes are affected
whenever an SR-policy is updated on zebra.
Signed-off-by: Renato Westphal <renato@opensourcerouting.org>
Fist, routing tables aren't the most appropriate data structure
to store nexthops and imported routes since we don't need to do
longest prefix matches with that information.
Second, by converting the NHT code to use rb-trees, we can index
the nexthops using additional information, not only the destination
address. This will be useful later to index bgpd's nexthops by
both destination and SR-TE color.
Co-authored-by: Sebastien Merle <sebastien@netdef.org>
Signed-off-by: Renato Westphal <renato@opensourcerouting.org>
until now, the assumption was done in bgp flowspec code that the
information contained was an ipv4 flowspec prefix. now that it is
possible to handle ipv4 or ipv6 flowspec prefixes, that information is
stored in prefix_flowspec attribute. Also, some unlocking is done in
order to process ipv4 and ipv6 flowspec entries.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Guibert <philippe.guibert@6wind.com>
Added a macro to validate the v4 mapped v6 address.
Modified bgp receive & send updates for v4 mapped v6 address as
nexthop and installing it as recursive nexthop in RIB.
Minor change in fpm while sending the routes for nexthop as
v4 mapped v6 address.
Signed-off-by: Kaushik <kaushik@niralnetworks.com>
This is the bulk part extracted from "bgpd: Convert from `struct
bgp_node` to `struct bgp_dest`". It should not result in any functional
change.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com>
Signed-off-by: David Lamparter <equinox@opensourcerouting.org>
When there is a NHT change and the paths dependent on that NHT are being
evaluated, skip those that are marked for removal or as history.
When a route gets withdrawn, its valid flag is cleared and it is flagged
for removal; in the case of an EVPN route, it is also unimported from
VRFs (L2 and/or L3). bgp_process is then scheduled. Under rare timing
conditions, an NHT update for the route's next hop may arrive right after,
and if routes flagged for removal are not skipped, they may not only be
incorrectly marked as valid but also re-imported in the case of EVPN,
which will be a serious error.
Signed-off-by: Vivek Venkatraman <vivek@cumulusnetworks.com>
Ensure that only if there is a change to the path's validity based
on the NHT update, EVPN import or unimport is invoked.
Signed-off-by: Vivek Venkatraman <vivek@cumulusnetworks.com>
It is possible that the if_lookup_by_index() call will return
a NULL value and calling zclient_send_interface_radv_req. Just
test that we have a valid interface pointer.
Found by Coverity
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com>
Problem reported that in many circumstances, RAs created in the
process of bringing up numbered IPv6 peers with extended-nexthop
capability enabled (for ipv4 over ipv6) were not stopped on the
interface when those peers were deleted. Found several circumstances
where this occurred and fix them in this patch.
Ticket: CM-26875
Signed-off-by: Don Slice <dslice@cumulusnetworks.com>
Problem Description:
=====================
+--+ +--+
|R1|-(192.201.202.1)----iBGP----(192.201.202.2)-|R2|
+--+ +--+
Routes on R2:
=============
S>* 202.202.202.202/32 [1/0] via 192.201.78.1, ens256, 00:40:48
Where, the next-hop network, 192.201.78.0/24, is a directly connected network address.
C>* 192.201.78.0/24 is directly connected, ens256, 00:40:48
Configurations on R1:
=====================
!
router bgp 201
bgp router-id 192.168.0.1
neighbor 192.201.202.2 remote-as 201
!
Configurations on R2:
=====================
!
ip route 202.202.202.202/32 192.201.78.1
!
router bgp 201
bgp router-id 192.168.0.2
neighbor 192.201.202.1 remote-as 201
!
address-family ipv4 unicast
redistribute static
exit-address-family
!
Step-1:
=======
R1 receives the route 202.202.202.202/32 from R2.
R1 installs the route in its BGP RIB.
Step-2:
=======
On R1, a connected interface address is added.
The address is the same as the next-hop of the BGP route received from R2 (192.201.78.1).
Point of Failure:
=================
R1 resolves the BGP route even though the route's next-hop is its own connected address.
Even though this appears to be a misconfiguration it would still be better to safeguard the code against it.
Fix:
====
When BGP receives a connected route from Zebra, it processes the
routes for the next-hop update.
While doing so, BGP must ignore routes whose next-hop address matches
the address of the connected route for which Zebra sent the next-hop update
message.
Signed-off-by: NaveenThanikachalam <nthanikachal@vmware.com>
Add new function `bgp_node_get_prefix()` and modify
the bgp code base to use it.
This is prep work for the struct bgp_dest rework.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com>
Current failed reasons for bgp when you have a peer that
is not online yet is `Waiting for NHT`, even if NHT has
succeeded. Add some code to differentiate this.
eva# show bgp ipv4 uni summ failed
BGP router identifier 192.168.201.135, local AS number 3923 vrf-id 0
BGP table version 0
RIB entries 0, using 0 bytes of memory
Peers 2, using 43 KiB of memory
Neighbor EstdCnt DropCnt ResetTime Reason
192.168.44.1 0 0 never Waiting for NHT
192.168.201.139 0 0 never Waiting for Open to Succeed
Total number of neighbors 2
eva#
eva# show bgp nexthop
Current BGP nexthop cache:
192.168.44.1 invalid, peer 192.168.44.1
Must be Connected
Last update: Mon Feb 10 19:05:19 2020
192.168.201.139 valid [IGP metric 0], #paths 0, peer 192.168.201.139
So 192.168.201.139 is a peer for a connected route that has not been
created on .139, while 44.1 nexthop tracking has not succeeded yet.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com>
bgp nexthop cache update triggers RA for global ipv6
nexthop update.
In case of blackhole route type the outgoing interface
information is NULL which leads to bgpd crash.
Skip sending RA for blackhole nexthop type.
Ticket:CM-27299
Reviewed By:
Testing Done:
Configure bgp neighbor over global ipv6 address.
Configure static blackhole route with prefix includes
connected ipv6 global address.
Upon link flap, zebra sends nexthop update to bgp.
Bgp nexthop cache skips sending RA for blackhole nexthop type.
router bgp 65002
bgp router-id 91.189.93.190
...
neighbor 2001:67c:1360::b peer-group internal
static route:
ipv6 route 2001:67c:1360::/48 Null0 254
iface rowlink.4010
address 91.189.93.190/32
address 2001:67c:1360::a/128
Trigger ifdown rowlink.4010; ifup rowlink.4010
Signed-off-by: Chirag Shah <chirag@cumulusnetworks.com>
Problem statement:
When IPv4/IPv6 prefixes are received in BGP, bgp_update function registers the
nexthop of the route with nexthop tracking module. The BGP route is marked as
valid only if the nexthop is resolved.
Even for EVPN RT-5, route should be marked as valid only if the the nexthop is
resolvable.
Code changes:
1. Add nexthop of EVPN RT-5 for nexthop tracking. Route will be marked as valid
only if the nexthop is resolved.
2. Only the valid EVPN routes are imported to the vrf.
3. When nht update is received in BGP, make sure that the EVPN routes are
imported/unimported based on the route becomes valid/invalid.
Testcases:
1. At rtr-1, advertise EVPN RT-5 with a nexthop 10.100.0.2.
10.100.0.2 is resolved at rtr-2 in default vrf.
At rtr-2, remote EVPN RT-5 should be marked as valid and should be imported into
vrfs.
2. Make the nexthop 10.100.0.2 unreachable at rtr-2
Remote EVPN RT-5 should be marked as invalid and should be unimported from the
vrfs. As this code change deals with EVPN type-5 routes only, other EVPN routes
should be valid.
3. At rtr-2, add a static route to make nexthop 10.100.0.2 reachable.
EVPN RT-5 should again become valid and should be imported into the vrfs.
Signed-off-by: Ameya Dharkar <adharkar@vmware.com>
Recently had a case where I was attempting to debug a nexthop tracking
issue across multiple bgp vrf's and since the setup vrf's in it with
overlapping address ranges, it became real fun real fast to track
vrf data associated. Add a bit of code to allow us to figure out
what vrf we are in when we print out debug messages.
Look through the rest of the code and find debugs where we are
not using bgp->name_pretty and switch it over.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com>
The functions nexthop_same() does not check the resolved
nexthops so I don't think this function is even needed
anymore.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Worley <sworley@cumulusnetworks.com>
if bfd comes back up, and a bgp reconnection is in progress, theorically
it should be necessary to wait for the end of the reconnection process.
however, since that reconnection process may take some time, update the
fsm by cancelling the connect timer. This done, one just have to call
the start timer.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Guibert <philippe.guibert@6wind.com>
Avoid tracking 0.0.0.0/32 nexthop with RIB.
When routes are aggregated,
the originate of the route becomes self.
Do not track nexthop self (0.0.0.0) with rib.
Ticket: CM-24248
Testing Done:
Before fix-
tor-11# show ip nht vrf all
VRF blue:
0.0.0.0
unresolved
Client list: bgp(fd 16)
VRF default:
VRF green:
VRF magenta:
0.0.0.0
unresolved
Client list: bgp(fd 16)
After fix-
tor-11# show ip nht vrf all
VRF blue:
VRF default:
VRF green:
VRF magenta:
Signed-off-by: Chirag Shah <chirag@cumulusnetworks.com>
redirect IP nh of flowspec entry is retrieved so that the nexthop
IP information is injected into the nexthop tracking, and is associated
to the bgp_path structure. This permits validating or unvalidating the
bgp_path for injection in zebra or not.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Guibert <philippe.guibert@6wind.com>
Null check of 'rn' returned by bgp_node_lookup() because it could be
deferenced afterwards into bgp_nexthop_get_node_info()
Signed-off-by: F. Aragon <paco@voltanet.io>
The bgp_nexthop_set_node_info and bgp_nexthop_get_node_info
function names were slightly backwards, rename to bgp_node_set and get
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com>
When we have a late registration of the Extended Nexthop capability
for BGP and the peer already has nexthop information stored, go
through and enable RA on the important interfaces.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com>
If we attempt to register nexthops before we have the zebra
connection, they will not be installed. After we have noticed
that we are up, re-install them.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com>
Allow some debug notification when we are unable to talk
to zebra due to the connection not being there yet.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com>
Recent changes to the nht code in bgp caused us to actually
keep a true count of v6 nexthop paths when using v4 over v6.
This change introduced a race condition on shutdown on who
got to the bnc cache first( the v4 table or not ). Effectively
we were allowing the continued existence of the path->nexthop
pointing to the freed bnc. This was especially true when
we had route leaking. So when we free the bnc make sure
we clean up the path->nexthop variables pointing at it too.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com>
Do a straight conversion of `struct bgp_info` to `struct bgp_path_info`.
This commit will setup the rename of variables as well.
This is being done because `struct bgp_info` is not descriptive
of what this data actually is. It is path information for routes
that we keep to build the actual routes nexthops plus some extra
information.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com>
Signed-off-by: Don Slice <dslice@cumulusnetworks.com>
Testing Done: bgp-smoke completed with no new failures
While testing 5549 support using global addresses, discovered that
ipv6 nexthop tracking thru a route-reflector didn't work. Since
the next-hop used for remote nexthops resolves to the link-local
of the route-reflector, we need to track it in order to react to
interface down events. Also tripped over a crash in certain cases
which is also resolved in this fix.
The bgp_nexthop_cache data is stored as a void pointer in `struct bgp_node`.
Abstract retrieval of this data and setting of this data
into functions so that in the future we can move around
what is stored in bgp_node.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com>
Currently we only support RFC 5549 in bgp via
using the `neighbor swp1 interface remote-as ...`
command. This causes the extended capability
data to be traded as part of the open message.
Additionally at that point in time we notify
zebra to turn on the RA code for that interface
so that the zebra trick of turning the v6 nexthop
into a 169.254.0.1 nexthop and adding a neighbor
entry works.
This code change does 2 things:
1) Modify bgp to pass the extended capability
if we are attempting to establish a v4/unicast
session over a v6 peer. In the past we limited
this to just the LL based peer.
2) Modify the nexthop tracking code to notice
when it receives nexthop data about the global v6
peer to turn on RA code on those interfaces we will
be using. This will allow the v4 route with a v6
nexthop received in zebra to auto translate this
correctly.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com>
