bgpd: Implement Link-Local Next Hop capability #17871
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Donatas Abraitis <donatas@opensourcerouting.org>
Signed-off-by: Donatas Abraitis <donatas@opensourcerouting.org>
Signed-off-by: Donatas Abraitis <donatas@opensourcerouting.org>
…er-peer Signed-off-by: Donatas Abraitis <donatas@opensourcerouting.org>
0d5556e to
d69fa2f
Compare
|
I've read the proposed draft and I'm not sure I am happy with the error handling aspect of it and how it works with older versions ( it's not specific enough imo ) |
d69fa2f to
ffc0a8e
Compare
Related: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-white-linklocal-capability TL;DR; use 16 bytes long next-hops for point-to-point (unnumbered) links instead of sending 32 bytes (::/LL, GUA/LL, LL/LL combinations). For backward compatiblity we should handle even 32 bytes existing next hops. Signed-off-by: Donatas Abraitis <donatas@opensourcerouting.org>
ffc0a8e to
db853cc
Compare
|
interface based peering is already supposed to do this. Why not just use that for this feature? As I understand it if we peer with a older version of FRR then it would still work. In other words why do we need a new knob when we have one already? |
you mean "neighbor X interface ..."? |
|
yes exactly. |
|
That would be probably fine. But I'm thinking what if I want to drop this capability (for some backward compatible SNAFU), but keep the session UP? |
|
If LL capability has not been negotiated, but the BGP speaker has received 16b NLRI => treat-as withdraw (reference to 7606)
Cheers,
Jeff
… On Jan 20, 2025, at 07:32, Donatas Abraitis ***@***.***> wrote:
@riw777 <https://github.com/riw777> @jefftant <https://github.com/jefftant> opinions?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#17871 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABSIDQ7HQ7VNGNXUZ7HMMRT2LUJKVAVCNFSM6AAAAABVLWRNV6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDMMBSG4YTQNBSHE>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
|
|
Yes, this is how it's handled now. The question is #17871 (comment). |
So the question is whether this should be:
or:
? Since we'd never use this for multihop, I don't know that it makes much difference? OTOH, I don't know that I'd go looking for this as an interface specific command ... ?? |
|
The question was if we need this additional knob at all or we can rely on |
Implementing https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-white-linklocal-capability.
=> frrbot skipped intentional according to our conventions.