IPv4 and IPv6 behaves a little bit differently with the socket
options.
IPPROTO_RAW socket option is only for IPv4.
Therefore the register packet was not properly getting encapculated
for PIMv6 and was working fine for PIMv4.
So have used IPPROTO_PIM for PIMv6.
Fixes: #11846
Signed-off-by: Mobashshera Rasool <mrasool@vmware.com>
BGP SoO is a tag that is appended on BGP updates to allow a peer to mark
a particular peer as belonging to a particular site. In certain MPLS L3 VPN
configurations, the BGP AS-Path may not provide the granularity needed
prevent a loop in the control-plane. With this in mind, BGP SoO is designed
to fill this gap and prevent a routing loop that may occur.
If we configure for example, `neighbor soo 65000:1` at PEs, routes won't be
announced between CPEs if soo matches. This is especially needed when using
as-override or allowas-in.
Also, this is the automated way of the same behavior as configuring route-maps
for each peer like:
```
bgp extcommunity-list cpe permit soo 65000:1
!
route-map cpe permit 10
set extcommunity soo 65000:1
...
route-map cpe deny 10
match extcommunity cpe
route-map cpe permit 20
...
```
Signed-off-by: Donatas Abraitis <donatas@opensourcerouting.org>
Fix issue #11839.
When the user defines a range in an area other than the backbone area, the
summary route will be announced to the backbone area as an inter-area LSA.
However, if the prefix defined in the range is the same prefix as a connected
route in that area, the LSA won't be announced to the backbone area.
This is because when ospf6d is originating the summary route for the
intra-area route, it finds the range configured by the user and tries to
suppress the route by deleting the existing summary route, which happens to be
the one created by the range.
Although the range definition is not necessary in this case, it should not
fail this use case. So let's just keep the summary route there if it is
created from the user defined range.
Signed-off-by: Xiaodong Xu <stid.smth@gmail.com>
FRR only needs lua library (package libluaX.Y-dev) to be compiled and
linked, but its `configure` script makes use of lua interpreter to
perform its checks. Therefore, `luaX.Y` package is a requisite
build-dependency for debian packaging.
This commit adds the debian package with the lua interpreter to the
build dependencies.
Signed-off-by: Eugene Crosser <crosser@average.org>
Whn using as-override, we should be able to deny outgoing updates from
being propogated when `neighbor soo` is configured.
Signed-off-by: Donatas Abraitis <donatas@opensourcerouting.org>
In kernel_socket.c, the code is deleting and then adding
the route back in on a change operation. This just translates
too two re's, one for deletion and one for addition. The deletion
will just be ignored. Let's not do the extra deletion.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@nvidia.com>
The new route code path was using a combination of
both rib_add() and rib_add_multipath() let's clean
it up some to use rib_add_multipath()
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@nvidia.com>
Currently if an operator does this operation:
sharpd@eva ~/frr8> sudo ip nexthop add id 5000 via 192.168.119.44 dev enp39s0 ; sudo ip route add 10.0.0.1 nhid 5000
2022/06/30 08:52:40 ZEBRA: [ZHQK5-J9M1R] proto2zebra: Please add this protocol(0) to proper rt_netlink.c handling
2022/06/30 08:52:40 ZEBRA: [PS16P-365FK][EC 4043309076] Zebra failed to find the nexthop hash entry for id=5000 in a route entry
sharpd@eva ~/frr8> vtysh -c "show ip route 10.0.0.1"
Routing entry for 0.0.0.0/0
Known via "kernel", distance 0, metric 100, best
Last update 00:01:58 ago
* 192.168.119.1, via enp39s0
The route is dropped by zebra with no warnings. This is not good,
but unlikely to happen at this point in time. In order to fix
this issue route processing from inputs needs to happen after nexthop
group processing from inputs. This was not possible because
nexthop groups are placed on the metaQ. As such the above
nexthop group creation is placed on the metaQ for processing
in META_QUEUE_NHG. Then the route is read in and processed
immediately. The nexthop group is not found ( not processed yet!)
and the route is dropped in zebra.
Modify the code to have early route processing of validity
on the MetaQ. This preserves the order of operations.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@nvidia.com>
Convert label processing that comes from zapi messages
into being handled by the meta-Q. This is because early
route processing is going to be moved to the meta-Q as
well and we will have a chicken and egg problem without
moving this code to be processed by the meta-Q.
Ordering of messages from ospf as an example:
2022/08/09 08:55:52.740 ZEBRA: [YXG8K-BCYMV] zebra message[ZEBRA_ROUTE_ADD:0:48] comes from socket [36]
2022/08/09 08:55:52.740 ZEBRA: [YXG8K-BCYMV] zebra message[ZEBRA_ROUTE_ADD:0:48] comes from socket [36]
2022/08/09 08:55:52.740 ZEBRA: [YXG8K-BCYMV] zebra message[ZEBRA_ROUTE_ADD:0:48] comes from socket [36]
2022/08/09 08:55:52.740 ZEBRA: [YXG8K-BCYMV] zebra message[ZEBRA_ROUTE_ADD:0:48] comes from socket [36]
2022/08/09 08:55:52.740 ZEBRA: [YXG8K-BCYMV] zebra message[ZEBRA_ROUTE_ADD:0:62] comes from socket [36]
2022/08/09 08:55:52.740 ZEBRA: [YXG8K-BCYMV] zebra message[ZEBRA_ROUTE_ADD:0:43] comes from socket [36]
2022/08/09 08:55:52.740 ZEBRA: [YXG8K-BCYMV] zebra message[ZEBRA_ROUTE_ADD:0:47] comes from socket [36]
2022/08/09 08:55:52.740 ZEBRA: [YXG8K-BCYMV] zebra message[ZEBRA_ROUTE_ADD:0:47] comes from socket [36]
2022/08/09 08:55:52.740 ZEBRA: [YXG8K-BCYMV] zebra message[ZEBRA_ROUTE_ADD:0:47] comes from socket [36]
2022/08/09 08:55:52.740 ZEBRA: [YXG8K-BCYMV] zebra message[ZEBRA_ROUTE_ADD:0:47] comes from socket [36]
2022/08/09 08:55:52.740 ZEBRA: [YXG8K-BCYMV] zebra message[ZEBRA_ROUTE_ADD:0:61] comes from socket [36]
2022/08/09 08:55:52.740 ZEBRA: [YXG8K-BCYMV] zebra message[ZEBRA_ROUTE_ADD:0:47] comes from socket [36]
2022/08/09 08:55:52.740 ZEBRA: [YXG8K-BCYMV] zebra message[ZEBRA_ROUTE_ADD:0:47] comes from socket [36]
2022/08/09 08:55:52.740 ZEBRA: [YXG8K-BCYMV] zebra message[ZEBRA_MPLS_LABELS_REPLACE:0:47] comes from socket [36]
2022/08/09 08:55:52.740 ZEBRA: [YXG8K-BCYMV] zebra message[ZEBRA_MPLS_LABELS_REPLACE:0:66] comes from socket [36]
2022/08/09 08:55:52.740 ZEBRA: [YXG8K-BCYMV] zebra message[ZEBRA_MPLS_LABELS_REPLACE:0:47] comes from socket [36]
2022/08/09 08:55:52.740 ZEBRA: [YXG8K-BCYMV] zebra message[ZEBRA_MPLS_LABELS_REPLACE:0:47] comes from socket [36]
2022/08/09 08:55:52.740 ZEBRA: [YXG8K-BCYMV] zebra message[ZEBRA_MPLS_LABELS_REPLACE:0:47] comes from socket [36]
The ZEBRA_MPLS_LABELS_REPLACE immediately turn around and attempt to replace nexthop labels on routes that
were added. If the route add is placed on the metaQ, it will not exist yet and as such the label replace
will fail.
Modify the zebra code to take the label operations and place them on the metaQ as well.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@nvidia.com>
Before this, if the community-list has an entry with permit internet (0:0),
then it's treated as permit everything and returned as MATCH.
So if we have something like:
```
bgp community-list standard OUT_AS_PERMIT seq 5 permit internet
bgp community-list standard OUT_AS_PERMIT seq 10 deny 4:1
bgp community-list standard OUT_AS_PERMIT seq 20 permit 3:1
```
It's not gonna work because it will return MATCH and stops parsing.
Routes with 4:1 community will be advertised.
Signed-off-by: Donatas Abraitis <donatas@opensourcerouting.org>
The socket created for pimv6 was created using AF_INET for PIMV6
too.
Since the api pim_reg_sock is common to both PIMv4 and PIMv6,
need to use PIM_AF instead of AF_INET.
Fixes: #11815
Signed-off-by: Mobashshera Rasool <mrasool@vmware.com>
