bgpd: fix ipv6 nexthop-local unchanged #17037
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
cunningr
reviewed
Oct 8, 2024
This reverts commit 5f6a61f. Signed-off-by: Louis Scalbert <louis.scalbert@6wind.com>
1bd3d0f to
ba7b1ac
Compare
ba7b1ac to
3e56ea7
Compare
|
ci:rerun |
ton31337
reviewed
Oct 10, 2024
Do not add an IPv6 link-local nexthop if the originating peer does not provide one and the nexthop-local unchanged setting is enabled. Signed-off-by: Louis Scalbert <louis.scalbert@6wind.com>
If the "nexthop-local unchanged" setting is enabled, it preserves the IPv6 link-local nexthop from the originating peer. However, if the originating and destination peers are not on the same network segment, the originating peer's IPv6 link-local address will be unreachable from the destination peer. In such cases, reset the IPv6 link-local nexthop, even if "nexthop-local unchanged" is set on the destination peer. Signed-off-by: Louis Scalbert <louis.scalbert@6wind.com>
Add bgp_nexthop_ipv6 to check the ipv6 link-local nexthop conformity in several situations. Signed-off-by: Louis Scalbert <louis.scalbert@6wind.com>
3e56ea7 to
6dc4d95
Compare
ton31337
reviewed
Oct 10, 2024
|
@Mergifyio backport dev/10.2 |
✅ Backports have been created
|
louis-6wind
added a commit
to louis-6wind/frr
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 11, 2024
AS 65000 | AS 65001
|
RR |
| |
R1 --- | --- R2
|
When r1 peer is an iBGP route reflector client of rr and r2 peer is a
eBGP neighbor of rr, and all three routers shares the same network, r2
receives announcements coming from r1 with a IPv6 link-local nexthop
from rr. This is incorrect as r2 should send traffic to r1 without
involving rr.
Do not send an IPv6 link-local nexthop if the originating peer is a
route-reflector client.
Link: FRRouting#16219 (comment)
Link: FRRouting#17037 (comment)
Signed-off-by: Louis Scalbert <louis.scalbert@6wind.com>
ton31337
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 11, 2024
bgpd: fix ipv6 nexthop-local unchanged (backport #17037)
louis-6wind
added a commit
to louis-6wind/frr
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 14, 2024
AS 65000 | AS 65001
|
RR |
| |
R1 --- | --- R2
|
When r1 peer is an iBGP route reflector client of rr and r2 peer is a
eBGP neighbor of rr, and all three routers shares the same network, r2
receives announcements coming from r1 with a IPv6 link-local nexthop
from rr. This is incorrect as r2 should send traffic to r1 without
involving rr.
Do not send an IPv6 link-local nexthop if the originating peer is a
route-reflector client.
Link: FRRouting#16219 (comment)
Link: FRRouting#17037 (comment)
Signed-off-by: Louis Scalbert <louis.scalbert@6wind.com>
zice312963205
pushed a commit
to wenwang00/frr
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 28, 2024
AS 65000 | AS 65001
|
RR |
| |
R1 --- | --- R2
|
When r1 peer is an iBGP route reflector client of rr and r2 peer is a
eBGP neighbor of rr, and all three routers shares the same network, r2
receives announcements coming from r1 with a IPv6 link-local nexthop
from rr. This is incorrect as r2 should send traffic to r1 without
involving rr.
Do not send an IPv6 link-local nexthop if the originating peer is a
route-reflector client.
Link: FRRouting#16219 (comment)
Link: FRRouting#17037 (comment)
Signed-off-by: Louis Scalbert <louis.scalbert@6wind.com>
zice312963205
pushed a commit
to wenwang00/frr
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 28, 2024
AS 65000 | AS 65001
|
RR |
| |
R1 --- | --- R2
|
When r1 peer is an iBGP route reflector client of rr and r2 peer is a
eBGP neighbor of rr, and all three routers shares the same network, r2
receives announcements coming from r1 with a IPv6 link-local nexthop
from rr. This is incorrect as r2 should send traffic to r1 without
involving rr.
Do not send an IPv6 link-local nexthop if the originating peer is a
route-reflector client.
Link: FRRouting#16219 (comment)
Link: FRRouting#17037 (comment)
Signed-off-by: Louis Scalbert <louis.scalbert@6wind.com>
|
I was just testing this fix in our environment for 10.2.1 but even with |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
#16219 attempted to solve #16198 issue but removed ipv6 link-local nexthop in situation it was legitimate. For example, when an ipv4-mapped IPv6 address is present in global IPv6 nexthop, the link-local is also useful if the peer does not understand the ipv4-mapped IPv6 address format.
Revert #16219 and apply fixes to the "ipv6 nexthop-local unchanged" behavior. When the parameter is present:
Add a topotest to check the ipv6 nexthops in various situations including the use case from #16219 (comment) and #17037 (comment)