-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
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
bgpd: Implement Link-Local Next Hop capability #17871
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
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). |
Implementing https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-white-linklocal-capability.
=> frrbot skipped intentional according to our conventions.