Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

zebra: be consistent about v6 nexthops for v4 routes #16103

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 27, 2024

Conversation

mjstapp
Copy link
Contributor

@mjstapp mjstapp commented May 29, 2024

Treat TYPE_IPV6 and TYPE_IPV6_IFINDEX nexthops the same way when processing v4 (RFC 5549) routes. TYPE_IPV6 nexthops were being treated as if the prefix was v6: that causes the zebra 'ip protocol' routemap to fail to match and prevents use of the routemap to set a v4 source address when installing the route. That in turn prevents locally-sourced traffic to the v4 prefix from working correctly.

@donaldsharp
Copy link
Member

when does zebra receive a NEXTHOP_TYPE_IPV6 for usage in 5549?

@mjstapp
Copy link
Contributor Author

mjstapp commented May 29, 2024

when does zebra receive a NEXTHOP_TYPE_IPV6 for usage in 5549?

when ... bgp has regular v6 nexthops to use? I don't think there's any requirement that the v6 addresses be link-locals, is there? we saw this problem with a sonic topology, so using sonic's frr at 8.5.x.

@donaldsharp
Copy link
Member

I was mainly asking to gauge whether or not I wanted to ask for a topotest. I don't mind treating both the same, I am trying to figure out what kind of code coverage we want.

@mjstapp
Copy link
Contributor Author

mjstapp commented May 31, 2024

CI:rerun

@donaldsharp
Copy link
Member

would it be possible to add a small topotest to show that this is working the way we want?

@riw777
Copy link
Member

riw777 commented Jun 4, 2024

new rfc 8950

Copy link
Member

@riw777 riw777 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

...

Copy link
Member

@riw777 riw777 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

...

@riw777
Copy link
Member

riw777 commented Jun 11, 2024

waiting on topo test

@riw777 riw777 self-requested a review July 9, 2024 03:01
Copy link
Member

@riw777 riw777 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

...

Treat TYPE_IPV6 and TYPE_IPV6_IFINDEX nexthops the same way when
processing v4 (RFC 5549) routes.

Signed-off-by: Mark Stapp <[email protected]>
@mjstapp mjstapp force-pushed the fix_5549_nhg_type branch from 9430c75 to 0221ed2 Compare August 6, 2024 12:19
@mjstapp
Copy link
Contributor Author

mjstapp commented Aug 6, 2024

rebased to current master...

@riw777 riw777 merged commit 5a6cb0b into FRRouting:master Aug 27, 2024
11 checks passed
@mjstapp mjstapp deleted the fix_5549_nhg_type branch December 16, 2024 13:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants