Hi Aman,
Thank you for your confirmation!
> --> This is definitely a possibility except you will have to consult FRR/Zebra
> to determine 'dev ens8' part, right? In any case, I will try this out in my
> testbed and let you know what happens.
Oops, I mistook. I want to remove 'dev ens8' part too, because GoBGP is not
maintaining the info (or list) of the interfaces. Ideally, I want to push routes
with only BGP's next-hop like;
$ ip route show vrf blue ...<snip>
172.16.0.1 encap mpls 80 via 192.168.10.3
192.168.1.0/24 encap mpls 80 via 192.168.10.3
If possible, I guess we can make the ZClient implementation keep (relatively)
simple.
Thanks,
Iwase
On 2018年02月13日 11:17, SHAIKH, AMAN (AMAN) wrote:
Hi Iwase
Comments inline ...
> This is perhaps a complicated transaction with FRR/Zebra. GoBGP will have to
> do this transaction when it imports a VPNv4 route into a VRF. It will have to >
instruct FRR/Zebra with two things:
> - Encapsulate the route with label associated with it.
> - Resolve the BGP next-hop in the default forwarding table even though the
> route is installed in the blue VRF.
>
> Let me know what your thoughts are.
Let me clear my head, first.
You mean the current GoBGP "additionally" need to install two route;
1. forwarding MPLS labeled traffic to VRF;
$ ip -f mpls route show ...<snip>
80 dev blue
--> Without this route, MPLS labeled traffic coming from the backbone will be
dropped by the PE. This route tells PE to pop VRF-label (80) from the packet and
consult the forwarding table of blue VRF for the IP destination address stored in
the IP portion of the packet.
2. pushing traffic from ECs to MPLS backbone;
$ ip route show vrf blue ...<snip>
172.16.0.1 encap mpls 19/80 via 10.202.0.8 dev ens8
192.168.1.0/24 encap mpls 19/80 via 10.202.0.8 dev ens8
For the "1." route, I guess we can install it when creating VRF, but not yet
implemented.
--> Yes, agree with you.
For the "2." route, related to the latter point you mentioned, can we specify
them like the following?
$ ip route show vrf blue ...<snip>
172.16.0.1 encap mpls 80 via 192.168.10.3 dev ens8
192.168.1.0/24 encap mpls 80 via 192.168.10.3 dev ens8
--> This is definitely a possibility except you will have to consult FRR/Zebra
to determine 'dev ens8' part, right? In any case, I will try this out in my
testbed and let you know what happens.
In other words, I want to avoid resolving the outer label and MPLS's next-hop
from the BGP's next-hop (if we can). I guess it helps the implementation simple.
--> Yes, I understand.
I took a (little) look at FRRouting implementation, bgpd does not seem to resolve the
outer label and MPLS's next-hop from the BGP's next-hop, because it does not call
"*_NEXTHOP_LOOKUP" messages.
--> I'm not surprised FRR's bgpd does not handle this. It's fairly complicated
given multi-step resolution of BGP next-hop along with multiple VRFs.
aman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
gobgp-devel mailing list
gobgp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gobgp-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
gobgp-devel mailing list
gobgp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gobgp-devel
