ospf6d : Intra area route for connected prefix not installed #7137
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
polychaeta
reviewed
Sep 21, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for your contribution to FRR!
Click for style suggestions
To apply these suggestions:
curl -s https://gist.githubusercontent.com/polychaeta/5284af807572292f97cbdf534a8f9b07/raw/4d9324ddb6e890b47e18f90c5da5420a3e74275b/cr_7137_1600658481.diff | git apply
diff --git a/ospf6d/ospf6_intra.c b/ospf6d/ospf6_intra.c
index 1e5a0ca6f..a52250141 100644
--- a/ospf6d/ospf6_intra.c
+++ b/ospf6d/ospf6_intra.c
@@ -1575,9 +1575,8 @@ void ospf6_intra_prefix_route_ecmp_path(struct ospf6_area *oa,
if (ifp) {
/* Nexthop interafce found */
- ospf6_route_add_nexthop(old_route,
- ifp->ifindex,
- NULL);
+ ospf6_route_add_nexthop(
+ old_route, ifp->ifindex, NULL);
} else {
/* Copy nexthops from ls entry */
ospf6_route_merge_nexthops(old_route,
If you are a new contributor to FRR, please see our contributing guidelines.
After making changes, you do not need to create a new PR. You should perform an amend or interactive rebase followed by a force push.
|
test logs |
Outdated results 💚Basic BGPD CI results: SUCCESS, 0 tests failed
For details, please contact louberger |
Continuous Integration Result: SUCCESSFULContinuous Integration Result: SUCCESSFULCongratulations, this patch passed basic tests Tested-by: NetDEF / OpenSourceRouting.org CI System CI System Testrun URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-FRRPULLREQ-14268/ This is a comment from an automated CI system. Warnings Generated during build:Debian 10 amd64 build: Successful with additional warningsDebian Package lintian failed for Debian 10 amd64 build: |
donaldsharp
requested changes
Sep 21, 2020
Spantik
reviewed
Sep 21, 2020
|
Configuring interface as point to point works correctly (with the fix) as shown in the attached logs |
|
In the case of P2P links, the intra area prefix LSA for local connected prefix references self originated router LSA and for remote prefix references remote router LSA. The linkstate entry for remote LSA contains the nexthop. To add local connected prefix to ospf route table interface lookup is required to get the ifindex. The peer connected prefix nexthop is copied from the linkstate entry related to peer router which contains the nexthop In the case of broadcast links, intra area prefix LSA contains all the connected prefixes and it references the network LSA. The network link state entry contains the nexthop which can be used for installing all the prefixes. |
KaushikNiral
reviewed
Oct 3, 2020
KaushikNiral
approved these changes
Oct 3, 2020
polychaeta
reviewed
Oct 4, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for your contribution to FRR!
Click for style suggestions
To apply these suggestions:
curl -s https://gist.githubusercontent.com/polychaeta/7b858688e41ad3dff96f8d8da8a576bf/raw/4d9324ddb6e890b47e18f90c5da5420a3e74275b/cr_7137_1601795454.diff | git apply
diff --git a/ospf6d/ospf6_intra.c b/ospf6d/ospf6_intra.c
index 1e5a0ca6f..a52250141 100644
--- a/ospf6d/ospf6_intra.c
+++ b/ospf6d/ospf6_intra.c
@@ -1575,9 +1575,8 @@ void ospf6_intra_prefix_route_ecmp_path(struct ospf6_area *oa,
if (ifp) {
/* Nexthop interafce found */
- ospf6_route_add_nexthop(old_route,
- ifp->ifindex,
- NULL);
+ ospf6_route_add_nexthop(
+ old_route, ifp->ifindex, NULL);
} else {
/* Copy nexthops from ls entry */
ospf6_route_merge_nexthops(old_route,
If you are a new contributor to FRR, please see our contributing guidelines.
After making changes, you do not need to create a new PR. You should perform an amend or interactive rebase followed by a force push.
polychaeta
reviewed
Oct 4, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for your contribution to FRR!
Click for style suggestions
To apply these suggestions:
curl -s https://gist.githubusercontent.com/polychaeta/9c2092f3a0da5279447201dc56c90c07/raw/e2ca2d0a119691ab5ac50b63ee9bc32c4dc66a94/cr_7137_1601795620.diff | git apply
diff --git a/ospf6d/ospf6_intra.c b/ospf6d/ospf6_intra.c
index a34f8d369..0f41d0710 100644
--- a/ospf6d/ospf6_intra.c
+++ b/ospf6d/ospf6_intra.c
@@ -1575,9 +1575,8 @@ void ospf6_intra_prefix_route_ecmp_path(struct ospf6_area *oa,
if (ifp) {
/* Nexthop interface found */
- ospf6_route_add_nexthop(old_route,
- ifp->ifindex,
- NULL);
+ ospf6_route_add_nexthop(
+ old_route, ifp->ifindex, NULL);
} else {
/* The connected interfaces between
* routers can be in different networks.
If you are a new contributor to FRR, please see our contributing guidelines.
After making changes, you do not need to create a new PR. You should perform an amend or interactive rebase followed by a force push.
Outdated results 💚Basic BGPD CI results: SUCCESS, 0 tests failed
For details, please contact louberger |
Continuous Integration Result: FAILEDContinuous Integration Result: FAILEDSee below for issues. This is a comment from an automated CI system. Get source / Pull Request: SuccessfulBuilding Stage: SuccessfulBasic Tests: FailedTopo tests part 2 on Ubuntu 16.04 i386: Failed (click for details)Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-FRRPULLREQ-TP2U1604I386-14539/test Topology Tests failed for Topo tests part 2 on Ubuntu 16.04 i386: see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-FRRPULLREQ-14539/artifact/TP2U1604I386/ErrorLog/log_topotests.txt Topo tests part 0 on Ubuntu 18.04 arm8: Failed (click for details)Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-FRRPULLREQ-TOPO0U18ARM8-14539/test Topology Tests failed for Topo tests part 0 on Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 Topo tests part 1 on Ubuntu 16.04 i386: Failed (click for details)Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-FRRPULLREQ-TP1U1604I386-14539/test Topology Tests failed for Topo tests part 1 on Ubuntu 16.04 i386: see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-FRRPULLREQ-14539/artifact/TP1U1604I386/ErrorLog/log_topotests.txt Successful on other platforms/tests
Warnings Generated during build:Debian 10 amd64 build: Successful with additional warningsDebian Package lintian failed for Debian 10 amd64 build: |
|
ci:rerun |
Continuous Integration Result: SUCCESSFULContinuous Integration Result: SUCCESSFULCongratulations, this patch passed basic tests Tested-by: NetDEF / OpenSourceRouting.org CI System CI System Testrun URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-FRRPULLREQ-14538/ This is a comment from an automated CI system. Warnings Generated during build:Debian 10 amd64 build: Successful with additional warningsDebian Package lintian failed for Debian 10 amd64 build: |
Continuous Integration Result: FAILEDContinuous Integration Result: FAILEDSee below for issues. This is a comment from an automated CI system. Get source / Pull Request: SuccessfulBuilding Stage: SuccessfulBasic Tests: FailedTopo tests part 1 on Ubuntu 18.04 arm8: Failed (click for details)Topo tests part 1 on Ubuntu 18.04 arm8: No useful log foundTopo tests part 0 on Ubuntu 18.04 arm8: Failed (click for details)Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-FRRPULLREQ-TOPO0U18ARM8-14540/test Topology Tests failed for Topo tests part 0 on Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 Topo tests part 2 on Ubuntu 16.04 i386: Failed (click for details)Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-FRRPULLREQ-TP2U1604I386-14540/test Topology Tests failed for Topo tests part 2 on Ubuntu 16.04 i386: see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-FRRPULLREQ-14540/artifact/TP2U1604I386/ErrorLog/log_topotests.txt Successful on other platforms/tests
Warnings Generated during build:Debian 10 amd64 build: Successful with additional warningsDebian Package lintian failed for Debian 10 amd64 build: |
|
Please rebase with master and push again. |
Issue: When ospfv3 is configured on interface between routers in different network,
the intra area route for the remote connected prefix is not installed in ospf
route table and zebra
Fix: When the advertising router is directly connected but in different network
the interface lookup in the intra area lsa processing does not provide
the matching interface and valid nexthop. Therefore the nexthop is
copied from the link state entry which contains valid
ifindex required for installing the route.
Signed-off-by: kssoman <somanks@gmail.com>
polychaeta
reviewed
Oct 4, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for your contribution to FRR!
Click for style suggestions
To apply these suggestions:
curl -s https://gist.githubusercontent.com/polychaeta/bde87179b26a4ada4f24febb7ba795e1/raw/e2ca2d0a119691ab5ac50b63ee9bc32c4dc66a94/cr_7137_1601829108.diff | git apply
diff --git a/ospf6d/ospf6_intra.c b/ospf6d/ospf6_intra.c
index a34f8d369..0f41d0710 100644
--- a/ospf6d/ospf6_intra.c
+++ b/ospf6d/ospf6_intra.c
@@ -1575,9 +1575,8 @@ void ospf6_intra_prefix_route_ecmp_path(struct ospf6_area *oa,
if (ifp) {
/* Nexthop interface found */
- ospf6_route_add_nexthop(old_route,
- ifp->ifindex,
- NULL);
+ ospf6_route_add_nexthop(
+ old_route, ifp->ifindex, NULL);
} else {
/* The connected interfaces between
* routers can be in different networks.
If you are a new contributor to FRR, please see our contributing guidelines.
After making changes, you do not need to create a new PR. You should perform an amend or interactive rebase followed by a force push.
💚 Basic BGPD CI results: SUCCESS, 0 tests failedResults table
For details, please contact louberger |
Continuous Integration Result: FAILEDContinuous Integration Result: FAILEDSee below for issues. This is a comment from an automated CI system. Get source / Pull Request: SuccessfulBuilding Stage: SuccessfulBasic Tests: FailedTopo tests part 0 on Ubuntu 18.04 arm8: Failed (click for details)Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-FRRPULLREQ-TOPO0U18ARM8-14545/test Topology Tests failed for Topo tests part 0 on Ubuntu 18.04 arm8: see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-FRRPULLREQ-14545/artifact/TOPO0U18ARM8/ErrorLog/log_topotests.txt Successful on other platforms/tests
Warnings Generated during build:Debian 10 amd64 build: Successful with additional warningsDebian Package lintian failed for Debian 10 amd64 build: |
|
ci:rerun |
Continuous Integration Result: FAILEDContinuous Integration Result: FAILEDSee below for issues. This is a comment from an automated CI system. Get source / Pull Request: SuccessfulBuilding Stage: SuccessfulBasic Tests: FailedTopo tests part 0 on Ubuntu 18.04 arm8: Failed (click for details)Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-FRRPULLREQ-TOPO0U18ARM8-14549/test Topology Tests failed for Topo tests part 0 on Ubuntu 18.04 arm8: see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-FRRPULLREQ-14549/artifact/TOPO0U18ARM8/ErrorLog/log_topotests.txt Successful on other platforms/tests
Warnings Generated during build:Debian 10 amd64 build: Successful with additional warningsDebian Package lintian failed for Debian 10 amd64 build: |
|
The topotest failure is not related to this PR changes. |
|
ci:rerun |
Continuous Integration Result: FAILEDContinuous Integration Result: FAILEDSee below for issues. This is a comment from an automated CI system. Get source / Pull Request: SuccessfulBuilding Stage: SuccessfulBasic Tests: FailedTopo tests part 0 on Ubuntu 18.04 amd64: Failed (click for details)Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-FRRPULLREQ-TOPOU1804-14646/test Topology Tests failed for Topo tests part 0 on Ubuntu 18.04 amd64: see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-FRRPULLREQ-14646/artifact/TOPOU1804/ErrorLog/log_topotests.txt Successful on other platforms/tests
Warnings Generated during build:Debian 10 amd64 build: Successful with additional warningsDebian Package lintian failed for Debian 10 amd64 build: |
|
ci:rerun |
Continuous Integration Result: SUCCESSFULCongratulations, this patch passed basic tests Tested-by: NetDEF / OpenSourceRouting.org CI System CI System Testrun URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-FRRPULLREQ-15052/ This is a comment from an automated CI system. Warnings Generated during build:Debian 10 amd64 build: Successful with additional warningsDebian Package lintian failed for Debian 10 amd64 build: |
Spantik
approved these changes
Nov 5, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Issue: When ospfv3 is configured on interface between routers in different network,
the intra area route for the remote connected prefix is not installed in ospf
route table and zebra
Fix: When the advertising router is directly connected but in different network
the interface lookup in the intra area lsa processing does not provide
the matching interface and valid nexthop. Therefore the nexthop is
copied from the link state entry which contains valid
ifindex required for installing the route.
Signed-off-by: kssoman somanks@gmail.com