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

ospf6d: withdraw redistributed prefixes based on prefix-list changes #6344

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 18, 2020

Conversation

dslicenc
Copy link
Member

@dslicenc dslicenc commented May 5, 2020

Problem reported that when a previously advertised redistributed
route should be withdrawn based on a prefix-list change or route-map
deletion, the external LSAs would remain in the database and not be
withdrawn from peers. This fix does the withdraw when the prefix-list
is changed or route-map is deleted.

Ticket: CM-28944
Signed-off-by: Don Slice dslice@cumulusnetworks.com

Problem reported that when an a previously advertised redistributed
route should be withdrawn based on a prefix-list change or route-map
deletion, the external LSAs would remain in the database and not be
withdrawn from peers. This fix does the withdraw when the prefix-list
is changed or route-map is deleted.

Ticket: CM-28944
Signed-off-by: Don Slice <dslice@cumulusnetworks.com>
@LabN-CI
Copy link
Collaborator

LabN-CI commented May 5, 2020

💚 Basic BGPD CI results: SUCCESS, 0 tests failed

Results table
_ _
Result SUCCESS git merge/6344 780d4bd
Date 05/05/2020
Start 10:06:25
Finish 10:32:21
Run-Time 25:56
Total 1815
Pass 1815
Fail 0
Valgrind-Errors 0
Valgrind-Loss 0
Details vncregress-2020-05-05-10:06:25.txt
Log autoscript-2020-05-05-10:07:22.log.bz2
Memory 471 465 425

For details, please contact louberger

@NetDEF-CI
Copy link
Collaborator

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-FRRPULLREQ-12160/

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:

Debian 10 amd64 build: Successful with additional warnings

Debian Package lintian failed for Debian 10 amd64 build:
(see full package build log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-FRRPULLREQ-12160/artifact/DEB10BUILD/ErrorLog/log_lintian.txt)

W: frr source: pkg-js-tools-test-is-missing
W: frr source: newer-standards-version 4.4.1 (current is 4.3.0)
W: frr source: pkg-js-tools-test-is-missing
W: frr source: newer-standards-version 4.4.1 (current is 4.3.0)
W: frr-snmp: changelog-file-missing-explicit-entry 6.0-2 -> 7.4-dev-20200505-00-g780d4bdd8-0 (missing) -> 7.4-dev-20200505-00-g780d4bdd8-0~deb10u1
W: frr-pythontools: changelog-file-missing-explicit-entry 6.0-2 -> 7.4-dev-20200505-00-g780d4bdd8-0 (missing) -> 7.4-dev-20200505-00-g780d4bdd8-0~deb10u1
W: frr-doc: changelog-file-missing-explicit-entry 6.0-2 -> 7.4-dev-20200505-00-g780d4bdd8-0 (missing) -> 7.4-dev-20200505-00-g780d4bdd8-0~deb10u1
W: frr: changelog-file-missing-explicit-entry 6.0-2 -> 7.4-dev-20200505-00-g780d4bdd8-0 (missing) -> 7.4-dev-20200505-00-g780d4bdd8-0~deb10u1
W: frr-rpki-rtrlib: changelog-file-missing-explicit-entry 6.0-2 -> 7.4-dev-20200505-00-g780d4bdd8-0 (missing) -> 7.4-dev-20200505-00-g780d4bdd8-0~deb10u1

@riw777 riw777 self-requested a review May 5, 2020 15:43
@Spantik Spantik self-requested a review May 5, 2020 15:45
Copy link
Member

@Spantik Spantik left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

/*
* if the mapname matches a route-map on
* ospf6 but the map doesn't exist, it
* is being deleted. flush and then
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. I think there are more fixes required which may be done in separate PR may be as this fixes delete route-map handling.

Below is one of the example where it can be handled better.

If I have prefix-list for permit any and all the static routes are redistributed and then same command is issued again then we send redistribute delete and add to zebra importing routes from zebra again while nothing has changed.

2020/05/16 07:12:39 OSPF6: ospf6_asbr_distribute_list_update: trigger redistribute static reset thread
2020/05/16 07:12:42 OSPF6: sendmsg failed: ifindex: 8: Network is unreachable (101)
2020/05/16 07:12:42 OSPF6: [EC 100663307] Could not send entire message
2020/05/16 07:12:44 OSPF6: ospf6_asbr_routemap_update_timer: route-map R1 update, reset redist static
2020/05/16 07:12:44 OSPF6: Zebra Receive route add: static 2001::1/128 nexthop :: ifindex 4 tag 0
2020/05/16 07:12:44 OSPF6: Redistribute 2001::1/128 (static)
2020/05/16 07:12:44 OSPF6: Advertise as AS-External Id:0.0.0.16 prefix 2001::1/128 metric 0
2020/05/16 07:12:44 OSPF6: Originate AS-External-LSA for 2001::1/128
2020/05/16 07:12:44 OSPF6: Zebra Receive route add: static 3001::1/128 nexthop :: ifindex 4 tag 2000
2020/05/16 07:12:44 OSPF6: Redistribute 3001::1/128 (static)
2020/05/16 07:12:44 OSPF6: Advertise as AS-External Id:0.0.0.17 prefix 3001::1/128 metric 0
2020/05/16 07:12:44 OSPF6: Originate AS-External-LSA for 3001::1/128
2020/05/16 07:12:44 OSPF6: Zebra Receive route add: static 3001::4/128 nexthop :: ifindex 4 tag 2000

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.

These changes look fine.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants