bugzilla-daemon at allevil
Jun 13, 2008, 10:29 AM
Post #3 of 6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug
------- Additional Comments From paul [at] dishone 2008-06-13 18:29 -------
Ok, I get it now. It's using BGP as a sort of 'AS-interface Gateway Protocol' to
distribute nexthop routing for multihop BGP (rather than statics, or some simple
IGP like RIP). Thanks Jo.
To address Eugen's comment, it isn't that the existing code is broken - its that
we don't support recursive lookups to this extent. Its not just a question of
code erroneously marking a nexthop as inactive, its that the code simply doesn't
know how to work out a route for 220.127.116.11:
# show ip route 0.0.0.0
Routing entry for 0.0.0.0/0
Known via "bgp", distance 20, metric 0
Last update 00:34:38 ago
E.g., if it were just a simple misapplication of an 'inactive', then the above
would have said '18.104.22.168 (recursive via 22.214.171.124) inactive' instead.
We have some support for recursive routes already. However, it relies on an
ordering of protocols to avoid cycles in the lookup (iBGP/multihop BGP ->
IGP/Static -> connected). To support BGP via BGP we'll need some other way to
detect cycles (e.g. floyd cycle finder, etc).
Another aspect to this bug is that the workaround is made harder because the BGP
route for the nexthop, though not considered for nexthop resolution, manages to
interfere withthe static - that's probably easier to fix.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
Quagga-bugs mailing list
Quagga-bugs [at] lists