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

isisd: After the router switches IS-IS type several times, the neighbor adjacency cannot be established. #16230

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 18, 2024

Conversation

zhou-run
Copy link
Contributor

  1. Router A is configured with "is-type level-1-2", while Router B is configured with "is-type level-1". Only level 1 neighbor entries are present on Router A.
  2. After configuring Router B with "is-type level-2-only", both level 1 and level 2 neighbor entries exist on Router A. The state of these entries is UP, and the level 1 neighbor entry is currently aging.
  3. Before the level 1 neighbor entry on Router A ages out, configuring Router B with "is-type level-1", both level 1 and level 2 neighbor entries exist on Router A. The level 2 neighbor entry is UP and will age out normally. However, the level 1 neighbor entry remains in the Initializing state, preventing the establishment of level 1 neighbor adjacency between Router A and Router B.

When the adjacency type of the link is switched in function isis_circuit_is_type_set(), the function circuit_resign_level() is called to delete the old level's circuit->u.bc.lan_neighs linked list. If the old level is not level-1-2, the function circuit_commence_level() is called to create a new level's circuit->u.bc.lan_neighs linked list, but neither of these functions handle the circuit->u.bc.adjdb linked list. This leads to a situation where upon receiving hello packets again in function process_lan_hello() before the circuit->u.bc.adjdb linked list entries age out, the circuit->u.bc.lan_neighs linked list is not constructed based on the circuit->u.bc.adjdb linked list. As a result, the hello packets sent will consistently lack an SNPA, causing the neighbor to remain unable to establish an adjacency upon receiving the hello packets.

Signed-off-by: zhou-run [email protected]

…or adjacency cannot be established.

1. Router A is configured with "is-type level-1-2", while Router B is configured with "is-type level-1". Only level 1 neighbor entries are present on Router A.
2. After configuring Router B with "is-type level-2-only", both level 1 and level 2 neighbor entries exist on Router A. The state of these entries is UP, and the level 1 neighbor entry is currently aging.
3. Before the level 1 neighbor entry on Router A ages out, configuring Router B with "is-type level-1", both level 1 and level 2 neighbor entries exist on Router A. The level 2 neighbor entry is UP and will age out normally. However, the level 1 neighbor entry remains in the Initializing state, preventing the establishment of level 1 neighbor adjacency between Router A and Router B.

When the adjacency type of the link is switched in function isis_circuit_is_type_set, the function circuit_resign_level() is called to delete the old level's circuit->u.bc.lan_neighs linked list. If the old level is not level-1-2, the function circuit_commence_level() is called to create a new level's circuit->u.bc.lan_neighs linked list, but neither of these functions handle the circuit->u.bc.adjdb linked list. This leads to a situation where upon receiving hello packets again before the circuit->u.bc.adjdb linked list entries age out, the circuit->u.bc.lan_neighs linked list is not constructed based on the circuit->u.bc.adjdb linked list. As a result, the hello packets sent will consistently lack an SNPA, causing the neighbor to remain unable to establish an adjacency upon receiving the hello packets.

Signed-off-by: zhou-run <[email protected]>
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.

looks good

@riw777 riw777 merged commit 0c760ef into FRRouting:master Jun 18, 2024
11 checks passed
@zhou-run zhou-run deleted the 202406171103 branch June 19, 2024 06:10
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.

2 participants