zebra: add LSP entry to nexthop via recursive #12469

dmytroshytyi-6WIND · 2022-12-08T17:16:13Z

The goal consists in establishing IP connectivity
between two CPEs, where in the middle there are:

a) 3 separate IGPs configured in Segment routing

north-east
east-west
west-south

b) BGP peerings are established between each endpoint of each IGP

iBGP between (north) and (east)
iBGP between (east) and (west)
iBGP between (west) and (south)

This patch allows to create an additional LSP
path forged by labeled iBGP.

There is an issue when creating this additional
LSP path, since the traffic from north to south
is dropped on east, and the traffic from south
to north is dropped on west.

The reason behind this is that labeled iBGP fails
to find a BGP route to install its LSP, because
there is an other IGP LSP.
This patch allows to create an additional LSP
path forged by labeled IBGP. This addition LSP
path will sit on top of an existing LSP path forged by an existing IGP.

Before:

east-vm# show mpls table
 Inbound Label  Type        Nexthop     Outbound Label
 -------------------------------------------------------
 1011           SR (IS-IS)  10.125.0.1  1011
 1022           SR (IS-IS)  lo          -
 11022          SR (IS-IS)  lo          -
 11035          SR (IS-IS)  10.126.0.3  11035
 36000          SR (IS-IS)  10.126.0.3  implicit-null

After command "mpls fec recursive-via-nexthop" was applied:

east-vm# show mpls table
 Inbound Label  Type        Nexthop     Outbound Label
 -------------------------------------------------------
 80             SR (IS-IS)  10.125.0.1  1011
 81             SR (IS-IS)  10.126.0.3  11035
 82             BGP         3.3.3.3     80
 1011           SR (IS-IS)  10.125.0.1  1011
 1022           SR (IS-IS)  lo          -
 11022          SR (IS-IS)  lo          -
 11035          SR (IS-IS)  10.126.0.3  11035
 36000          SR (IS-IS)  10.126.0.3  implicit-null

UPDATE:

When a FEC entry is registered, a BGP labeled route may not be
available to create an LSP entry. This is the case when trying
to forge an additional LSP path with BGP, on top of an IGP LSP path.
The following command authorises the creation of an additional
BGP labeled LSP path over an IGP LSP path:

mpls fec seamless-resolve

A topology consists of multiple segments:

    r1 ---- r2 ---- r3 ---- r4 ----- r5 ---- r6 ---- r7
     <--- ospf ----> <---- isis -----> <--- ospf ---->

UPDATE2:

The topology of topotest presented in this pull request is described by this figure:

(BGP)  ------- (BGP)  -------  (BGP)  -------  (BGP)
r1 ---- r2 ---- r3 ---- r4 ----- r5 ---- r6 ---- r7
<--- ospf ----> <---- isis -----> <--- ospf ---->

Commands examples:

Commands added:

r3# configure
r3(config)# mpls
  fec    MPLS FEC table
  label  Label configuration
  ldp    Label Distribution Protocol
  lsp    Establish label switched path
r3(config)# mpls fec
  seamless-resolve  Authorise seamless MPLS resolution
r3(config)# mpls fec seamless-resolve

r3# configure
r3(config)# vrf default
r3(config-vrf)# mpls
  fec  MPLS FEC table
r3(config-vrf)# mpls fec
  resolve-seamless  Authorise seamless MPLS resolution
r3(config-vrf)# mpls fec seamless-resolve

east-vm# show running-config
Building configuration...
...
!
mpls fec seamless-resolve
!
...

"Seamless-resolve" is disabled with command:

r3(config)# no mpls fec seamless-resolve

and r3 has the next mpls table:

r3# show mpls table
 Inbound Label  Type        Nexthop     Outbound Label  
 ------------------------------------------------------- 
 1011           SR (OSPF)   10.126.0.2  1011             
 1022           SR (OSPF)   10.126.0.2  implicit-null    
 11044          SR (IS-IS)  10.127.0.4  implicit-null    
 11055          SR (IS-IS)  10.127.0.4  11055            
 30000          SR (OSPF)   10.126.0.2  implicit-null    
 30001          SR (OSPF)   10.126.0.2  implicit-null    
 36000          SR (IS-IS)  10.127.0.4  implicit-null

"Seamless-resolve" is enabled with command:

r3(config)# mpls fec seamless-resolve

and r3 has the next mpls table:

r3# show mpls table
 Inbound Label  Type        Nexthop     Outbound Label  
 -------------------------------------------------------
 17             SR (IS-IS)  10.127.0.4  11055           
 18             SR (OSPF)   10.126.0.2  1011            
 19             BGP         10.127.0.4  11055/19        
 1011           SR (OSPF)   10.126.0.2  1011            
 1022           SR (OSPF)   10.126.0.2  implicit-null   
 11044          SR (IS-IS)  10.127.0.4  implicit-null   
 11055          SR (IS-IS)  10.127.0.4  11055           
 30000          SR (OSPF)   10.126.0.2  implicit-null   
 30001          SR (OSPF)   10.126.0.2  implicit-null   
 36000          SR (IS-IS)  10.127.0.4  implicit-null

mjstapp · 2022-12-08T17:35:49Z

A couple of top-level questions: the description here is too lean. How will this new lookup solve the problem you're trying to describe? The existing recursive check is probably trying to avoid a situation where some next-hop doesn't speak mpls at all - or doesn't understand the label stack. How can you ensure that won't happen?

mjstapp · 2022-12-08T17:36:26Z

It would be better not to be working from "master" in your fork - it would be better to work from a branch in your fork.

mjstapp

Must have docs for this, and it should be included in a topotest as well.

mjstapp · 2022-12-08T17:37:22Z

bgpd/bgp_route.c

+	    (safi == SAFI_UNICAST && !peer->afc[afi][safi] &&
+	     peer->afc[afi][SAFI_LABELED_UNICAST] &&
+	     CHECK_FLAG(peer->af_flags[afi][SAFI_LABELED_UNICAST],
+			PEER_FLAG_REFLECTOR_CLIENT)))


you can't add this much unconditional change without ... a comment explaining exactly what these additional terms mean.

Commit log was updated with a comment.

That's good, from the commit-log pov, but it's really what I asked for? I'd like to see a comment here in the code, where this very particular decision is being taken. Otherwise, someone who is trying to follow the logic bears the burden of doing a git blame, walking through the code, and searching the git history in order to locate the comment.

mjstapp · 2022-12-08T17:38:01Z

zebra/rib.h

@@ -416,6 +416,7 @@ extern struct route_entry *rib_match_ipv6_multicast(vrf_id_t vrf_id,

 extern struct route_entry *rib_lookup_ipv4(struct prefix_ipv4 *p,
 					   vrf_id_t vrf_id);
+extern struct route_entry *rib_lookup(struct prefix *p, vrf_id_t vrf_id);


Do we really need yet-another copy of the "lookup a route" logic for this purpose?

There is only ipv4 lookup available, no ipv6 lookup was found. changing the prototype of "rib_lookup_ipv4" will lead to code impact as other functions use it. Instead of creating ipv6_lookup, the generic rib_lookup was added.

looks like route_node_lookup() is widely used - won't that work?

Finally we do not need another copy, as you are suggesting. The rib_lookup_ipv4 evolved to rib_lookup with generic ipv4 ipv6 functionality in new version.

mjstapp · 2022-12-08T17:39:23Z

zebra/zebra_mpls.c

@@ -197,10 +200,29 @@ static int lsp_install(struct zebra_vrf *zvrf, mpls_label_t label,
 	 */
 	for (nexthop = re->nhe->nhg.nexthop;
 	     nexthop; nexthop = nexthop->next) {
+		nexthop_via_recursive = nexthop;
 		/* Skip inactive and recursive entries. */


Old comment?

Will be fixed

mjstapp · 2022-12-08T17:39:26Z

zebra/zebra_mpls.c

+			}
+
+			re_recursive = rib_lookup(&p, zvrf->vrf->vrf_id);
+			nexthop_via_recursive = re_recursive->nhe->nhg.nexthop;


what if the lookup doesn't succeed?
and again, we have to have a comment describing what this branch is trying to do.

Indeed, the code should also cope with this situation.

mjstapp · 2022-12-08T17:40:14Z

zebra/zebra_mpls.c

+ * vtysh configuration of "mpls fec resolve-via-recursive"
+ */
+void zebra_mpls_fec_recursive_seamless_enabled(bool status,
+					       struct zebra_vrf *zvrf)


Add zvrf apis to the zvrf module, not the zebra_mpls module?

Reply: thanks will be moved to zvrf module

mjstapp · 2022-12-08T17:40:49Z

zebra/zebra_mpls_vty.c

 	return write;
 }

+/* Enable seamless MPLS */
+DEFUN (mpls_fec_recursive_seamless,


DEFPY now, please, and you can use one block that includes the 'no' form.

Understood, it is going to be addressed.

mjstapp · 2022-12-08T17:41:35Z

zebra/zebra_rib.c

@@ -641,15 +641,56 @@ struct route_entry *rib_lookup_ipv4(struct prefix_ipv4 *p, vrf_id_t vrf_id)
 	return NULL;
 }

+struct route_entry *rib_lookup(struct prefix *p, vrf_id_t vrf_id)


Adding another copy of the route-lookup logic is pretty unappealing. Is this absolutely necessary (and correct)?

There is only ipv4 lookup available, no ipv6 lookup was found. changing the prototype of "rib_lookup_ipv4" will lead to code impact as other functions use it. Instead of creating ipv6_lookup, the generic rib_lookup was added.

To further this point a cut-n-paste of code just fixing up struct prefix_ipv4 to struct prefix_ipv6 is a big hard no from me. Abstract to the generic functionality and replace all the places that rib_lookup_ipv4 is used with just a plain old rib_lookup. I'm not interested in cut-n-paste code.

Thanks for this comment. In new version of the PATCH,
struct route_entry *rib_lookup_ipv4 will be replaced by
struct route_entry *rib_lookup with generic functionality for ipv4 and ipv6 prefixes with replacement of all occurrences in the code without cut-n-paste.

mjstapp · 2022-12-08T17:42:45Z

zebra/zebra_rib.c


-	if (re->type != ZEBRA_ROUTE_BGP)
+	if ((re->type != ZEBRA_ROUTE_BGP) &&
+	    !zvrf->zebra_mpls_fec_recursive_seamless)


Again, why this change?

when a FEC entry is added in zebra on
reception of a BGP labeled unicast update, an LSP entry is
created. That LSP entry is resolved by using the re route entry
which is also installed by BGP labeled unicast.

This route entry is not available when we face with i-bgp
peering session.
Actually, the BGP labeled unicast is working over an
LSP network, but associated BGP labeled unicast entries are not selected.

This change disables the (re->type != ZEBRA_ROUTE_BGP) check.
Thus we rely on the available network entry.

Without this modification we have:

east-vm# show mpls table Inbound Label Type Nexthop Outbound Label ------------------------------------------------------- 1011 SR (IS-IS) 10.125.0.1 implicit-null 1033 SR (IS-IS) 10.126.0.3 implicit-null 1044 SR (IS-IS) 10.126.0.3 1044 30000 SR (IS-IS) 10.125.0.1 implicit-null 30001 SR (IS-IS) 10.126.0.3 implicit-null

After this modification we have:

east-vm# show mpls table Inbound Label Type Nexthop Outbound Label ------------------------------------------------------- 17 SR (IS-IS) 10.125.0.1 implicit-null 19 SR (IS-IS) 10.126.0.3 implicit-null 20 SR (IS-IS) 10.126.0.3 1044 1011 SR (IS-IS) 10.125.0.1 implicit-null 1033 SR (IS-IS) 10.126.0.3 implicit-null 1044 SR (IS-IS) 10.126.0.3 1044 30000 SR (IS-IS) 10.125.0.1 implicit-null 30001 SR (IS-IS) 10.126.0.3 implicit-null

Please look at all the places where this function is called. We can't just return true in all of those paths.

Hello, I updated the description with IETF document that highlights the approach proposed by these series of patches ( I hope this might help )

NetDEF-CI · 2022-12-08T19:46:33Z

Continuous Integration Result: SUCCESSFUL

Congratulations, this patch passed basic tests

Tested-by: NetDEF / OpenSourceRouting.org CI System

CI System Testrun URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-8760/

This is a comment from an automated CI system.
For questions and feedback in regards to this CI system, please feel free to email
Martin Winter - mwinter (at) opensourcerouting.org.

Warnings Generated during build:

Checkout code: Successful with additional warnings

<stdin>:177: trailing whitespace.
{        
warning: 1 line adds whitespace errors.
Report for zebra_mpls_vty.c | 2 issues
===============================================
< WARNING: Avoid line continuations in quoted strings
< #315: FILE: /tmp/f1-1648343/zebra_mpls_vty.c:315:

ton31337

And also... tests + docs?

dmytroshytyi-6WIND · 2022-12-09T11:57:52Z

A couple of top-level questions: the description here is too lean. How will this new lookup solve the problem you're trying to describe? The existing recursive check is probably trying to avoid a situation where some next-hop doesn't speak mpls at all - or doesn't understand the label stack. How can you ensure that won't happen?

The description was updated.

I supposed too that recursive check is probably present to avoid the case when next-hop is not an mpls hop. This patch is optional feature enabled by the vtysh command only where network operator ensures that setup is properly configured.
BGP labeled LSP requires that an existing BGP route with a labeled nexthop is available. Enabling recursivity authorises the BGP lableed LSP to use an other labeled nexthop route. The case with no label never happens.

dmytroshytyi-6WIND · 2022-12-09T11:58:38Z

It would be better not to be working from "master" in your fork - it would be better to work from a branch in your fork.

For next pull request, I will pay attention. Thank you.

dmytroshytyi-6WIND · 2022-12-09T12:01:40Z

Must have docs for this, and it should be included in a topotest as well.

I will work on this, Thanks.

dmytroshytyi-6WIND · 2022-12-09T12:10:33Z

And also... tests + docs?

I will work on this.

mjstapp · 2022-12-09T14:59:40Z

Why are you trying to use bgp-lu here at all, when you don't have hop-by-hop peers? If you announced recursive ip routes, they'd be installed to use the SR LSPs just fine - I think?

A couple of top-level questions: the description here is too lean. How will this new lookup solve the problem you're trying to describe? The existing recursive check is probably trying to avoid a situation where some next-hop doesn't speak mpls at all - or doesn't understand the label stack. How can you ensure that won't happen?

The description was updated.

I supposed too that recursive check is probably present to avoid the case when next-hop is not an mpls hop. This patch is optional feature enabled by the vtysh command only where network operator ensures that setup is properly configured. BGP labeled LSP requires that an existing BGP route with a labeled nexthop is available. Enabling recursivity authorises the BGP lableed LSP to use an other labeled nexthop route. The case with no label never happens.

mjstapp · 2022-12-09T15:12:15Z

zebra/zebra_mpls.c

+			nhlfe = nhlfe_add(lsp, lsp_type,
+					  nexthop_via_recursive->type,
+					  &nexthop->gate,
+					  nexthop_via_recursive->ifindex,
 					  nexthop->nh_label->num_labels,
 					  nexthop->nh_label->label,


trying to be clearer about the question here: so this says "send an mpls packet with the LU labels on a link where there's no assurance that those labels mean anything. and the destination mac will be ... for an address that doesn't exist on the link." so ... how can that be meaningful to do?

donaldsharp · 2022-12-09T18:10:11Z

zebra/zebra_mpls.c

+				p.prefixlen = IPV6_MAX_BITLEN;
+			}
+
+			re_recursive = rib_lookup(&p, zvrf->vrf->vrf_id);


I'm willing to bet that this 1st commit in the tree needs rib_lookup to work. This will not even compile. I'm not interested in taking code that will fail me when I have a git bisect. Please take the time and make sure the code will work and compile in sequence

I'm working on the new version that has the code which compiles in sequence. Thank you for the comment.

donaldsharp · 2022-12-09T21:08:49Z

There needs to be doc changes as well as an topotest or two to show this new feature working

dmytroshytyi-6WIND · 2022-12-16T10:49:15Z

There needs to be doc changes as well as an topotest or two to show this new feature working

I'm currently working on 3 topotests, thanks.

What doc changes exactly do you have in mind? (Please note I updated the topic with IETF document, this might help).

NetDEF-CI · 2022-12-30T17:15:09Z

Continuous Integration Result: FAILED

See below for issues.
CI System Testrun URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9034/

This is a comment from an automated CI system.
For questions and feedback in regards to this CI system, please feel free to email
Martin Winter - mwinter (at) opensourcerouting.org.

Get source / Pull Request: Successful

Building Stage: Successful

Basic Tests: Failed

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 6: Failed (click for details)

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO6U18I386-9034/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 6
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9034/artifact/TOPO6U18I386/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 6: Unknown Log
URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9034/artifact/TOPO6U18I386/TopotestDetails/

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 1: Failed (click for details)

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 1: Unknown Log URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9034/artifact/TOPO1U18ARM8/TopotestDetails/ Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 1: No useful log found

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 6: Failed (click for details)

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 6: Unknown Log URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9034/artifact/TOPO6U18ARM8/TopotestDetails/ Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 6: No useful log found

Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 6: Failed (click for details)

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO6DEB10AMD64-9034/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 6
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9034/artifact/TOPO6DEB10AMD64/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 6: Failed (click for details)

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO6U18AMD64-9034/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 6
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9034/artifact/TOPO6U18AMD64/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt

Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 4: Failed (click for details)

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO4DEB10AMD64-9034/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 4
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9034/artifact/TOPO4DEB10AMD64/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt

Successful on other platforms/tests

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 1
Addresssanitizer topotests part 2
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 5
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 4
Addresssanitizer topotests part 9
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 7
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 2
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 5
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 0
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 2
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 7
Addresssanitizer topotests part 3
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 8
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 9
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 7
Fedora 29 rpm pkg check
Addresssanitizer topotests part 6
CentOS 7 rpm pkg check
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 2
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 7
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 0
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 3
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 5
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 0
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 8
Ubuntu 20.04 deb pkg check
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 4
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 9
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 3
Debian 10 deb pkg check
Debian 9 deb pkg check
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 1
Addresssanitizer topotests part 1
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 4
Ubuntu 18.04 deb pkg check
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 3
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 8
Addresssanitizer topotests part 8
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 9
Addresssanitizer topotests part 7
Addresssanitizer topotests part 4
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 5
Addresssanitizer topotests part 5
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 3
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 1
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 9
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 2
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 8
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 0
Static analyzer (clang)
Ubuntu 16.04 deb pkg check
Addresssanitizer topotests part 0

Warnings Generated during build:

Checkout code: Successful with additional warnings

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 6: Failed (click for details)

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO6U18I386-9034/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 6
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9034/artifact/TOPO6U18I386/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 6: Unknown Log
URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9034/artifact/TOPO6U18I386/TopotestDetails/

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 1: Failed (click for details)

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 1: Unknown Log URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9034/artifact/TOPO1U18ARM8/TopotestDetails/ Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 1: No useful log found

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 6: Failed (click for details)

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 6: Unknown Log URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9034/artifact/TOPO6U18ARM8/TopotestDetails/ Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 6: No useful log found

Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 6: Failed (click for details)

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO6DEB10AMD64-9034/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 6
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9034/artifact/TOPO6DEB10AMD64/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 6: Failed (click for details)

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO6U18AMD64-9034/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 6
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9034/artifact/TOPO6U18AMD64/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt

Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 4: Failed (click for details)

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO4DEB10AMD64-9034/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 4
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9034/artifact/TOPO4DEB10AMD64/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt

<stdin>:29: trailing whitespace.
WhenaFECentryisregistered,aBGPlabeled routemaynotbe 
warning: 1 line adds whitespace errors.
Report for zebra_mpls.c | 2 issues
===============================================
< ERROR: do not use assignment in if condition
< #511: FILE: /tmp/f1-3178530/zebra_mpls.c:511:

NetDEF-CI · 2022-12-30T18:09:31Z

Continuous Integration Result: FAILED

See below for issues.
CI System Testrun URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9036/

This is a comment from an automated CI system.
For questions and feedback in regards to this CI system, please feel free to email
Martin Winter - mwinter (at) opensourcerouting.org.

Get source / Pull Request: Successful

Building Stage: Successful

Basic Tests: Failed

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 6: Failed (click for details)

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO6U18I386-9036/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 6
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9036/artifact/TOPO6U18I386/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 6: Unknown Log
URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9036/artifact/TOPO6U18I386/TopotestDetails/

Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 6: Failed (click for details)

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO6DEB10AMD64-9036/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 6
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9036/artifact/TOPO6DEB10AMD64/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 6: Failed (click for details)

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 6: Unknown Log URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9036/artifact/TOPO6U18ARM8/TopotestDetails/ Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 6: No useful log found

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 6: Failed (click for details)

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO6U18AMD64-9036/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 6
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9036/artifact/TOPO6U18AMD64/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt

Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 4: Failed (click for details)

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO4DEB10AMD64-9036/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 4
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9036/artifact/TOPO4DEB10AMD64/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt

Successful on other platforms/tests

Addresssanitizer topotests part 2
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 5
Ubuntu 16.04 deb pkg check
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 4
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 1
Addresssanitizer topotests part 9
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 2
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 1
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 2
Addresssanitizer topotests part 3
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 7
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 5
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 0
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 7
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 8
Addresssanitizer topotests part 7
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 0
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 9
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 7
Addresssanitizer topotests part 6
CentOS 7 rpm pkg check
Fedora 29 rpm pkg check
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 7
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 2
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 0
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 3
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 8
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 4
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 5
Ubuntu 20.04 deb pkg check
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 9
Ubuntu 18.04 deb pkg check
Debian 10 deb pkg check
Debian 9 deb pkg check
Addresssanitizer topotests part 1
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 4
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 1
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 3
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 8
Addresssanitizer topotests part 8
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 9
Addresssanitizer topotests part 4
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 5
Addresssanitizer topotests part 5
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 1
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 3
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 2
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 9
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 0
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 8
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 3
Addresssanitizer topotests part 0
Static analyzer (clang)

Warnings Generated during build:

Checkout code: Successful with additional warnings

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 6: Failed (click for details)

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO6U18I386-9036/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 6
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9036/artifact/TOPO6U18I386/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 6: Unknown Log
URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9036/artifact/TOPO6U18I386/TopotestDetails/

Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 6: Failed (click for details)

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO6DEB10AMD64-9036/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 6
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9036/artifact/TOPO6DEB10AMD64/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 6: Failed (click for details)

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 6: Unknown Log URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9036/artifact/TOPO6U18ARM8/TopotestDetails/ Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 6: No useful log found

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 6: Failed (click for details)

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO6U18AMD64-9036/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 6
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9036/artifact/TOPO6U18AMD64/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt

Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 4: Failed (click for details)

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO4DEB10AMD64-9036/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 4
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9036/artifact/TOPO4DEB10AMD64/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt

<stdin>:29: trailing whitespace.
WhenaFECentryisregistered,aBGPlabeled routemaynotbe 
warning: 1 line adds whitespace errors.
Report for zebra_mpls.c | 2 issues
===============================================
< ERROR: do not use assignment in if condition
< #511: FILE: /tmp/f1-3394531/zebra_mpls.c:511:

NetDEF-CI · 2023-01-03T12:46:17Z

Continuous Integration Result: FAILED

Test incomplete. See below for issues.
CI System Testrun URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9050/

This is a comment from an automated CI system.
For questions and feedback in regards to this CI system, please feel free to email
Martin Winter - mwinter (at) opensourcerouting.org.

Get source / Pull Request: Successful

Building Stage: Successful

Basic Tests: Incomplete

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 8: Failed (click for details)

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 8: Unknown Log URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9050/artifact/TOPO8U18AMD64/TopotestDetails/ Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 8: No useful log found

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 6: Failed (click for details)

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO6U18I386-9050/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 6
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9050/artifact/TOPO6U18I386/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 6: Unknown Log
URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9050/artifact/TOPO6U18I386/TopotestDetails/

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 7: Incomplete

(check logs for details)

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 6: Failed (click for details)

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 6: Unknown Log URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9050/artifact/TOPO6U18ARM8/TopotestDetails/ Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 6: No useful log found

Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 6: Failed (click for details)

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO6DEB10AMD64-9050/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 6
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9050/artifact/TOPO6DEB10AMD64/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 6: Failed (click for details)

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO6U18AMD64-9050/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 6
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9050/artifact/TOPO6U18AMD64/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt

Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 4: Failed (click for details)

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO4DEB10AMD64-9050/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 4
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9050/artifact/TOPO4DEB10AMD64/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt

Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 3: Incomplete

(check logs for details)

Successful on other platforms/tests

Addresssanitizer topotests part 9
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 3
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 2
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 5
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 2
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 0
Ubuntu 16.04 deb pkg check
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 7
Addresssanitizer topotests part 7
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 1
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 5
Addresssanitizer topotests part 5
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 3
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 2
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 0
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 7
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 5
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 8
Addresssanitizer topotests part 3
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 8
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 0
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 9
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 4
Addresssanitizer topotests part 2
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 9
Fedora 29 rpm pkg check
CentOS 7 rpm pkg check
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 4
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 2
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 8
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 7
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 0
Static analyzer (clang)
Addresssanitizer topotests part 8
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 9
Ubuntu 20.04 deb pkg check
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 5
Debian 10 deb pkg check
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 1
Addresssanitizer topotests part 6
Ubuntu 18.04 deb pkg check
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 1
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 1
Addresssanitizer topotests part 0
Addresssanitizer topotests part 4
Debian 9 deb pkg check
Addresssanitizer topotests part 1
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 4
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 3
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 9

mjstapp · 2023-01-05T17:46:48Z

I don't think that there's really any value in referring to a draft that expired in ... 2014 or 2015.

We use the word "recursive" in most places when we want to refer to nexthop resolution - and it seems like that's what you're attempting to use here - so let's use that keyword for LSPs also, unless there's some compelling reason to introduce a new term.

mjstapp · 2023-01-05T17:50:24Z

I'm all for leveraging the work we're already doing to resolve recursive IP routes. But I think I still don't follow the logic that you're proposing for LSPs. If an mpls frame with a composite label stack arrives at the boundary between the IGP and BGP, what happens, exactly? How does that last IGP hop know what to do with the BGP label advertised to and imposed at the source?

NetDEF-CI · 2023-04-29T09:14:25Z

Continuous Integration Result: FAILED

See below for issues.
CI System Testrun URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-11210/

This is a comment from an automated CI system.
For questions and feedback in regards to this CI system, please feel free to email
Martin Winter - mwinter (at) opensourcerouting.org.

Get source / Pull Request: Successful

Building Stage: Successful

Basic Tests: Failed

Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 1: Failed (click for details)

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO1DEB10AMD64-11210/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 1
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-11210/artifact/TOPO1DEB10AMD64/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 1: Unknown Log
URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-11210/artifact/TOPO1DEB10AMD64/TopotestDetails/

Successful on other platforms/tests

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 6
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 1
Addresssanitizer topotests part 2
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 5
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 4
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 1
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 7
Addresssanitizer topotests part 9
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 7
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 6
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 6
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 2
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 5
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 0
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 2
Addresssanitizer topotests part 3
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 8
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 9
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 7
Addresssanitizer topotests part 6
CentOS 7 rpm pkg check
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 2
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 3
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 7
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 0
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 5
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 8
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 0
Ubuntu 20.04 deb pkg check
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 9
Debian 10 deb pkg check
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 3
Debian 9 deb pkg check
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 1
Addresssanitizer topotests part 1
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 4
Ubuntu 18.04 deb pkg check
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 3
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 6
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 8
Addresssanitizer topotests part 8
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 9
Addresssanitizer topotests part 7
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 4
Addresssanitizer topotests part 4
Addresssanitizer topotests part 5
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 3
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 9
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 2
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 8
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 0
Static analyzer (clang)
Addresssanitizer topotests part 0

dmytroshytyi-6WIND · 2023-04-29T09:25:25Z

ci:rerun

dmytroshytyi-6WIND · 2023-04-29T09:26:19Z

ci:rerun

NetDEF-CI · 2023-04-29T12:13:09Z

Continuous Integration Result: SUCCESSFUL

Congratulations, this patch passed basic tests

Tested-by: NetDEF / OpenSourceRouting.org CI System

CI System Testrun URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-11212/

This is a comment from an automated CI system.
For questions and feedback in regards to this CI system, please feel free to email
Martin Winter - mwinter (at) opensourcerouting.org.

NetDEF-CI · 2023-04-29T12:16:52Z

Continuous Integration Result: SUCCESSFUL

Congratulations, this patch passed basic tests

Tested-by: NetDEF / OpenSourceRouting.org CI System

CI System Testrun URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-11213/

This is a comment from an automated CI system.
For questions and feedback in regards to this CI system, please feel free to email
Martin Winter - mwinter (at) opensourcerouting.org.

Commands added: r3# configure r3(config)# mpls fec MPLS FEC table label Label configuration ldp Label Distribution Protocol lsp Establish label switched path r3(config)# mpls fec mpls fec nexthop-resolution Authorise nexthop resolution over all labeled routes. r3(config)# mpls fec mpls fec nexthop-resolution r3# configure r3(config)# vrf default r3(config-vrf)# mpls fec MPLS FEC table r3(config-vrf)# mpls fec mpls fec nexthop-resolution Authorise nexthop resolution over all labeled routes. r3(config-vrf)# mpls fec nexthop-resolution east-vm# show running-config Building configuration... ... ! mpls fec nexthop-resolution ! ... Signed-off-by: Dmytro Shytyi <dmytro.shytyi@6wind.com>

Upon reconfiguring nexthop-resolution updates, update the lsp entries accordingly. If fec nexthop-resolution becomes true, then call again fec_change_update_lsp() for each fec entry available. If fec nexthop-resolution becomes false, then call again fec_change_update_lsp() for each fec entry available, and if the update fails, uninstall any lsp related with the fec entry. In the case lsp_install() and no lsp entry could be created or updated, then consider this call as a failure, and return -1. Co-developed-by: Dmytro Shytyi <dmytro.shytyi@6wind.com> Signed-off-by: Philippe Guibert <philippe.guibert@6wind.com> Signed-off-by: Dmytro Shytyi <dmytro.shytyi@6wind.com>

This commit addresses an issue that happens when using bgp labeled unicast peering with a rr client, with a received prefix which is the local ip address of the bgp session. When using bgp ipv4 labeled session, the local prefix is received by a peer, and finds out that the proposed prefix and its next-hop are the same. To avoid a route loop locally, no nexthop entry is referenced for that prefix, and the route will not be selected. As it has been done for ipv4-unicast, apply the following fix for labeled address families: when the received peer is a route reflector, the prefix has to be selected, even if the route can not be installed locally. Fixes: f874552 ("bgpd: authorise to select bgp self peer prefix on rr case") Signed-off-by: Philippe Guibert <philippe.guibert@6wind.com> Signed-off-by: Dmytro Shytyi <dmytro.shytyi@6wind.com>

There are two ways of iterating over nexthops of a given route entry. - Either only the main nexthop are taken into account (which is the case today when attempting to install an LSP entry on a BGP connected labeled route. - Or by taking into account nexthops that are resolved and linked in nexthop->resolved of the previous nexthop which has RECURSIVE flag set. This second case has to be taken into account in the case where recursive routes may be used to install an LSP entry. Introduce a new API in nexthop that will parse over the appropriate nexthop, if the nexthop-resolution flag is turned on or not on the given VRF. Use that API in the lsp_install() function so as to walk over the appropriate nexthops. Co-developed-by: Dmytro Shytyi <dmytro.shytyi@6wind.com> Signed-off-by: Philippe Guibert <philippe.guibert@6wind.com> Signed-off-by: Dmytro Shytyi <dmytro.shytyi@6wind.com>

When an LSP entry is created from a FEC entry, multiple labels may now be appended to the LSP entry, instead of one single. Upon lsp creation, the LSP trace will display all the labels appended. Signed-off-by: Dmytro Shytyi <dmytro.shytyi@6wind.com>

Until now, when a FEC entry is added in zebra, driven by the reception of a BGP labeled unicast update, an LSP entry is created. That LSP entry is resolved by using the route entry which is also installed by BGP labeled unicast. This route entry is not available when we face with i-bgp peering session. I-BGP labeled sessions are used to establish IP connectivity across separate IGPs. The below dumps illustrate a 3 IGP topology. An attempt to create connectivity between the north and the south machines is done. The 3 separate IGPs are configured in Segment routing: - north-east - east-west - west-south We create BGP peerings between each endpoint of each IGP: - iBGP between (north) and (east) - iBGP between (east) and (west) - iBGP between (west) and (south) Before that patch, the FEC entries could not be resolved on the east machine: Before: east-vm# show mpls fec 192.0.2.1/32 Label: 18 Client list: bgp(fd 48) 192.0.2.5/32 Label: 17 Client list: bgp(fd 48) 192.0.2.7/32 Label: 19 Client list: bgp(fd 48) east-vm# show mpls table Inbound Label Type Nexthop Outbound Label -------------------------------------------------------- 1011 SR (OSPF) 192.168.2.2 1011 1022 SR (OSPF) 192.168.2.2 implicit-null 11044 SR (IS-IS) 192.168.3.4 implicit-null 11055 SR (IS-IS) 192.168.3.4 11055 30000 SR (OSPF) 192.168.2.2 implicit-null 30001 SR (OSPF) 192.168.2.2 implicit-null 36000 SR (IS-IS) 192.168.3.4 implicit-null east-vm# show ip route [..] B 192.0.2.1/32 [200/0] via 192.0.2.1 inactive, label implicit-null, weight 1, 00:17:45 O>* 192.0.2.1/32 [110/20] via 192.168.2.2, r3-eth0, label 1011, weight 1, 00:17:47 O>* 192.0.2.2/32 [110/10] via 192.168.2.2, r3-eth0, label implicit-null, weight 1, 00:17:47 O 192.0.2.3/32 [110/0] is directly connected, lo, weight 1, 00:17:57 C>* 192.0.2.3/32 is directly connected, lo, 00:18:03 I>* 192.0.2.4/32 [115/20] via 192.168.3.4, r3-eth1, label implicit-null, weight 1, 00:17:59 B 192.0.2.5/32 [200/0] via 192.0.2.5 inactive, label implicit-null, weight 1, 00:17:56 I>* 192.0.2.5/32 [115/30] via 192.168.3.4, r3-eth1, label 11055, weight 1, 00:17:58 B> 192.0.2.7/32 [200/0] via 192.0.2.5 (recursive), label 19, weight 1, 00:17:45 * via 192.168.3.4, r3-eth1, label 11055/19, weight 1, 00:17:45 [..] After command "mpls fec nexthop-resolution" was applied, the FEC entries will resolve over any non BGP route that has a labeled path selected. east-vm# show mpls table Inbound Label Type Nexthop Outbound Label -------------------------------------------------------- 17 SR (IS-IS) 192.168.3.4 11055 18 SR (OSPF) 192.168.2.2 1011 19 BGP 192.168.3.4 11055/19 1011 SR (OSPF) 192.168.2.2 1011 1022 SR (OSPF) 192.168.2.2 implicit-null 11044 SR (IS-IS) 192.168.3.4 implicit-null 11055 SR (IS-IS) 192.168.3.4 11055 30000 SR (OSPF) 192.168.2.2 implicit-null 30001 SR (OSPF) 192.168.2.2 implicit-null 36000 SR (IS-IS) 192.168.3.4 implicit-null Co-developed-by: Dmytro Shytyi <dmytro.shytyi@6wind.com> Signed-off-by: Dmytro Shytyi <dmytro.shytyi@6wind.com> Signed-off-by: Philippe Guibert <philippe.guibert@6wind.com>

Change the comment in the code that refers to ZEBRA_FLAG_XXX defines. Signed-off-by: Philippe Guibert <philippe.guibert@6wind.com> Signed-off-by: Dmytro Shytyi <dmytro.shytyi@6wind.com>

Because the nhlfe label stack may contain more than one label, ensure to copy all labels. Co-developed-by: Dmytro Shytyi <dmytro.shytyi@6wind.com> Signed-off-by: Philippe Guibert <philippe.guibert@6wind.com> Signed-off-by: Dmytro Shytyi <dmytro.shytyi@6wind.com>

There are 3 tests with OSPF, IS-IS, BGP and MPLS configured: 1. Check the status of BGP session between North and South == Established 2. Check the connectivity with "ping South -I North" 3. Check the label on the West. Signed-off-by: Philippe Guibert <philippe.guibert@6wind.com> Signed-off-by: Dmytro Shytyi <dmytro.shytyi@6wind.com>

FEC nexthop entry resolution over MPLS networks Signed-off-by: Philippe Guibert <philippe.guibert@6wind.com> Signed-off-by: Dmytro Shytyi <dmytro.shytyi@6wind.com>

NetDEF-CI · 2023-09-04T17:12:54Z

Continuous Integration Result: FAILED

Test incomplete. See below for issues.
CI System Testrun URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-13978/

This is a comment from an automated CI system.
For questions and feedback in regards to this CI system, please feel free to email
Martin Winter - mwinter (at) opensourcerouting.org.

Get source / Pull Request: Successful

Building Stage: Successful

Basic Tests: Incomplete

Addresssanitizer topotests part 4: Incomplete

(check logs for details)

Successful on other platforms/tests

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 8
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 2
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 7
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 0
Static analyzer (clang)
Addresssanitizer topotests part 8
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 9
Ubuntu 20.04 deb pkg check
Debian 10 deb pkg check
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 5
Addresssanitizer topotests part 6
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 1
Ubuntu 18.04 deb pkg check
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 1
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 1
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 6
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 6
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 6
Addresssanitizer topotests part 0
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 4
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 3
Debian 9 deb pkg check
Addresssanitizer topotests part 1
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 4
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 3
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 9
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 7
Addresssanitizer topotests part 9
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 3
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 2
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 5
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 2
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 0
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 8
Addresssanitizer topotests part 7
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 6
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 1
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 7
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 5
Addresssanitizer topotests part 5
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 2
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 3
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 0
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 7
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 5
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 8
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 0
Addresssanitizer topotests part 3
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 8
Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 9
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 4
Addresssanitizer topotests part 2
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 9
Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 4
CentOS 7 rpm pkg check

github-actions · 2023-09-29T09:57:03Z

This pull request has conflicts, please resolve those before we can evaluate the pull request.

frrbot bot added bgp zebra labels Dec 8, 2022

github-actions bot added master size/L labels Dec 8, 2022

mjstapp reviewed Dec 8, 2022

View reviewed changes

ton31337 reviewed Dec 9, 2022

View reviewed changes

mjstapp reviewed Dec 9, 2022

View reviewed changes

donaldsharp reviewed Dec 9, 2022

View reviewed changes

dmytroshytyi-6WIND force-pushed the master branch from d3e54f4 to 45eae20 Compare December 30, 2022 14:44

frrbot bot added the libfrr label Dec 30, 2022

github-actions bot added size/XL and removed size/L labels Dec 30, 2022

dmytroshytyi-6WIND force-pushed the master branch from 45eae20 to fc53649 Compare December 30, 2022 15:43

frrbot bot added the documentation label Dec 30, 2022

dmytroshytyi-6WIND force-pushed the master branch from fc53649 to 20ad0f5 Compare January 3, 2023 10:28

dmytroshytyi-6WIND requested review from ton31337 and mjstapp June 7, 2023 16:57

dmytroshytyi-6WIND force-pushed the master branch from b628643 to 528d9c3 Compare September 4, 2023 14:08

frrbot bot added sharp staticd yang labels Sep 4, 2023

dmytroshytyi-6WIND and others added 10 commits September 4, 2023 16:31

zebra: the header containing the re->flags is in zclient.h

439f276

Change the comment in the code that refers to ZEBRA_FLAG_XXX defines. Signed-off-by: Philippe Guibert <philippe.guibert@6wind.com> Signed-off-by: Dmytro Shytyi <dmytro.shytyi@6wind.com>

doc: fec nexthop resolution documentation

3d17479

FEC nexthop entry resolution over MPLS networks Signed-off-by: Philippe Guibert <philippe.guibert@6wind.com> Signed-off-by: Dmytro Shytyi <dmytro.shytyi@6wind.com>

dmytroshytyi-6WIND force-pushed the master branch from 528d9c3 to 3d17479 Compare September 4, 2023 14:32

mergify bot mentioned this pull request Sep 4, 2023

bgpd,doc,lib,sharpd,staticd,yang,zebra: SRv6 multiple segs SIDs #14089

Merged

github-actions bot added the conflicts label Sep 29, 2023

dmytroshytyi-6WIND deleted the branch FRRouting:master November 16, 2023 14:41

dmytroshytyi-6WIND closed this Nov 16, 2023

dmytroshytyi-6WIND deleted the master branch November 16, 2023 14:41

dmytroshytyi-6WIND mentioned this pull request Jan 30, 2024

zebra: add LSP entry to nexthop via recursive (part 2) #15259

Merged

zebra: add LSP entry to nexthop via recursive #12469

zebra: add LSP entry to nexthop via recursive #12469

Conversation

dmytroshytyi-6WIND commented Dec 8, 2022 • edited Loading

mjstapp commented Dec 8, 2022

mjstapp commented Dec 8, 2022

mjstapp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dmytroshytyi-6WIND Dec 9, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dmytroshytyi-6WIND Dec 16, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

NetDEF-CI commented Dec 8, 2022 • edited Loading

Continuous Integration Result: SUCCESSFUL

Warnings Generated during build:

ton31337 left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dmytroshytyi-6WIND commented Dec 9, 2022

dmytroshytyi-6WIND commented Dec 9, 2022

dmytroshytyi-6WIND commented Dec 9, 2022

dmytroshytyi-6WIND commented Dec 9, 2022 • edited Loading

mjstapp commented Dec 9, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

donaldsharp commented Dec 9, 2022

dmytroshytyi-6WIND commented Dec 16, 2022

NetDEF-CI commented Dec 30, 2022 • edited Loading

Continuous Integration Result: FAILED

Get source / Pull Request: Successful

Building Stage: Successful

Basic Tests: Failed

Warnings Generated during build:

NetDEF-CI commented Dec 30, 2022 • edited Loading

Continuous Integration Result: FAILED

Get source / Pull Request: Successful

Building Stage: Successful

Basic Tests: Failed

Warnings Generated during build:

NetDEF-CI commented Jan 3, 2023 • edited Loading

Continuous Integration Result: FAILED

Get source / Pull Request: Successful

Building Stage: Successful

Basic Tests: Incomplete

mjstapp commented Jan 5, 2023

mjstapp commented Jan 5, 2023

NetDEF-CI commented Apr 29, 2023

Continuous Integration Result: FAILED

Get source / Pull Request: Successful

Building Stage: Successful

Basic Tests: Failed

dmytroshytyi-6WIND commented Apr 29, 2023

dmytroshytyi-6WIND commented Apr 29, 2023

NetDEF-CI commented Apr 29, 2023

Continuous Integration Result: SUCCESSFUL

NetDEF-CI commented Apr 29, 2023

Continuous Integration Result: SUCCESSFUL

NetDEF-CI commented Sep 4, 2023

dmytroshytyi-6WIND commented Dec 8, 2022 •

edited

Loading

dmytroshytyi-6WIND Dec 9, 2022 •

edited

Loading

dmytroshytyi-6WIND Dec 16, 2022 •

edited

Loading

NetDEF-CI commented Dec 8, 2022 •

edited

Loading

ton31337 left a comment •

edited

Loading

dmytroshytyi-6WIND commented Dec 9, 2022 •

edited

Loading

NetDEF-CI commented Dec 30, 2022 •

edited

Loading

NetDEF-CI commented Dec 30, 2022 •

edited

Loading

NetDEF-CI commented Jan 3, 2023 •

edited

Loading