Hi,
Just to confirm, the following configuration works perfectly, using
separate router IDs for each protocol, and identifying them by router id
in the agent map:
bgp_ip=4.0.0.1 ip=0.0.0.0/0 filter='ip or (vlan and ip)'
bgp_ip=6.0.0.1 ip=0.0.0.0/0 filter='ip6 or (vlan and ip6)'
Now I've done the necessary configuration changes, this solution will be
fine for my environment.
Thanks for looking into this for me,
Charlie
On 04/01/17 11:33, Paolo Lucente wrote:
Hi Charlie,
If possible and easy for you, it would be great if you can change the BGP
Router ID among the two instances and confirm at least that scenario is
working good for you. I'm meanwhile trying to reproduce the scenario to
see if the issue you raised can be easily fixed.
Cheers,
Paolo
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 09:57:06AM +0000, Charlie Smurthwaite wrote:
Hi,
I just wanted to follow up on this. It this something that could
potentially be fixed, or something I'm doing wrong? I'm afraid I
lack the understanding of the code to understand the nature of the
problem or attempt to patch it myself.
Thanks again,
Charlie
On 02/01/17 10:19, Charlie Smurthwaite wrote:
Hi Paolo,
Thanks for the suggestion. I am using bird which has separate
daemons for v4 and v6, so I don't think there is any way to
combine the sessions.
I could resolve this by changing the router IDs to be different
between v4 and v6, but I'd hoped this would not be necessary and I
could match on the peer IP address instead.
Charlie
On 02/01/17 00:21, Paolo Lucente wrote:
Hi Charlie,
I see about the same BGP router-id; i then wonder: why don't you just
travel both v4 and v6 address families inside the very same v4 (or v6)
session? Why the need for two sessions?
Cheers,
Paolo
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 05:18:18PM +0000, Charlie Smurthwaite wrote:
Thank you very much Paolo!
The parser now accepts this configuration, but it still doesn't
quite work. Here is my bgp_agent_map now:
bgp_ip=127.0.0.1 ip=0.0.0.0/0 filter='ip or (vlan and ip)'
bgp_ip=::1 ip=0.0.0.0/0 filter='ip6 or (vlan and ip6)'
It seems that while ::1 is now accepted, it doesn't actually match
the peer. Here is the BGP log output:
INFO ( default/core/BGP ): maximum BGP peers allowed: 2
INFO ( default/core/BGP ): waiting for BGP data on :::17917
INFO ( default/core/BGP ): [127.0.0.1] BGP peers usage: 1/2
INFO ( default/core/BGP ): [185.5.34.12] Capability: MultiProtocol
[1] AFI [1] SAFI [1]
INFO ( default/core/BGP ): [185.5.34.12] Capability: 4-bytes AS [41]
ASN [65535]
INFO ( default/core/BGP ): [185.5.34.12] BGP_OPEN: Local AS: 65535
Remote AS: 65535 HoldTime: 240
INFO ( default/core/BGP ): [::1] BGP peers usage: 2/2
INFO ( default/core/BGP ): [185.5.34.12] Capability: MultiProtocol
[1] AFI [2] SAFI [1]
INFO ( default/core/BGP ): [185.5.34.12] Capability: 4-bytes AS [41]
ASN [65535]
INFO ( default/core/BGP ): [185.5.34.12] BGP_OPEN: Local AS: 65535
Remote AS: 65535 HoldTime: 240
If i bring up only the IPv6 peering, the following (using the router
ID) works and resolves only IPv6 ASNs. Unfortunately, both my IPv4
and IPv6 sessions use the same router ID.
bgp_ip=185.5.34.12 ip=0.0.0.0/0
It seems that something isn't quite right with matching "bgp_id=::1"
against the session originating from ::1. Would you mind seeing if
you can reproduce this?
Thanks!
Charlie
On 31/12/16 11:34, Paolo Lucente wrote:
Hi Charlie,
Definitely a bug, yes. Thanks for your report. This is now fixed:
https://github.com/pmacct/pmacct/commit/ab7d675f1eaa90f753327a07c0184247f5f0517c
Cheers,
Paolo
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 11:37:31PM +0000, Charlie Smurthwaite wrote:
Hi,
I am running pmacctd with 2 BGP sessions to a local bird
instance, one
for IPv4 and one for IPv6. I have written a bgp_agent_map a follows:
bgp_ip=127.0.0.1 ip=0.0.0.0/0 filter='ip'
bgp_ip=::1 ip=0.0.0.0/0 filter='ip6'
Unfortunately, the second line fails to parse. The error is:
WARN ( default/core ): [/etc/pmacct/bgp_agent_map:2] required key
missing. Required keys are: 'id', 'ip'. Line ignored.
I have tried various other IPv6 addresses in place of "::1" and they
work, but "::1" and "0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1" will not work. I
have tested this
on 1.6.1 and master. Is this a bug?
Thanks!
Charlie
Charlie Smurthwaite
Technical Director
tel. email.
charlie@atech.media<mailto:charlie@atech.media> web.
https://atech.media
This e-mail has been sent by aTech Media Limited (or one
of its assoicated group companys, Dial 9 Communications
Limited or Viaduct Hosting Limited). Its contents are
confidential therefore if you have received this message
in error, we would appreciate it if you could let us know
and delete the message. aTech Media Limited is a UK
limited company, registration number 5523199. Dial 9
Communications Limited is a UK limited company,
registration number 7740921. Viaduct Hosting Limited is a
UK limited company, registration number 8514362. All
companies are registered at Unit 9 Winchester Place, North
Street, Poole, Dorset, BH15 1NX.
_______________________________________________
pmacct-discussion mailing list
http://www.pmacct.net/#mailinglists
_______________________________________________
pmacct-discussion mailing list
http://www.pmacct.net/#mailinglists
_______________________________________________
pmacct-discussion mailing list
http://www.pmacct.net/#mailinglists
