Hello, This is an interesting problem.
> Router A had address 10.0.200.1 and has a default route, which babel shares > using src-prefix 10.0.0.0/16 <http://10.0.0.0/16>. > root@B:~# ip rule show > 0: from all lookup 128 > 1: from all lookup local > 100: from 10.0.100.0/16 <http://10.0.100.0/16> lookup 10 Not the actual problem, but this should be 10.0.0.0/16 instead of 10.0.100.0/16. Is your A configuration file correct? > My question is: Shouldn't the route for 10.0.100.0/24 <http://10.0.100.0/24> > appear in the source specific table of router B? It's "normal", but not desirable in this case. It's a "not implemented" part (kernel routes are not considered). The point is that considering kernel (FIB) routes is not an obvious choice: at which point should we correct the FIB. For instance, we probably don't want to see Babel inserting additional routes when there is only kernel routes. 1. Should we add a (D, S) route (with the corresponding rule) for each "src-prefix <prefix>" configuration directive ? 2. Should we fix the FIB ? (detecting rules associated to imported tables, and fixing the routing) 3. Should we fix the redistributed routes of the FIB ? (creating rules for "src-prefix" config, adding additional entries in that table, even without receiving routes) 4. Should we fix routing for redistributed routes and babel routes pairs ? Now, I would say "Probably" for the 1, "No" for 2, "Unclear" for the 3, and "Yes" for the 4. Dealing with redistribution is always difficult… I'll sleep on that before writing a patch. Don't hesitate to give your opinion. Before a suitable solution is written, you may be able to temporarily fix your problem with some kind of "ip rule add prio 90 to 10.0.100.0/24 table 254". Matthieu
_______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
