On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 11:01:09AM -0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2022-07-13, Tobias Fiebig <tob...@reads-this-mailinglist.com> wrote: > > Heho, > > > > When doing what i described in my message, I get the below messages. > > > > When I set static routes, packet forwarding works fine, i.e.: > > > > gw02.dus01.as59645.net ~ # route add -inet6 2a06:d1c2::/48 > > 2a06:d1c0::dead:beef:c02 > > add net 2a06:d1c2::/48: gateway 2a06:d1c0::dead:beef:c02 > > > > bgp-test.test /etc # route add -inet6 default 2a06:d1c0::dead:beef:c01 > > add net default: gateway 2a06:d1c0::dead:beef:c01 > > > > Removing those routes and restarting the BGPD then also leads to a > > successful import of routes, see bgpctl sh nex at the bottom of this mail. > > > > It somehow feels like bgpd does not register that wg0 came up. > > Yes. > > You can check with "route -n monitor" that the route messages are correctly > sent when the interface is brought up, also try running bgpd in the foreground > with debug logging (bgpd -vvvd or so) and see if any errors/warnings are > logged when wg comes up.
Looking at the show nexthop output it seem bgpd does not get the RTM_IFINFO message with the IFP_UP flag set. It still thinks the interface is down. This is a bug in wg(4) which probably sends the rt message before applying the flag. > > Let me try if this behavior is the same for other tunnels (eoip). > > Worth a try. Also maybe different between v4 and v6, WireGuard doesn't really > do v6 properly. The v4 part is also not great to be honest. Doing dynamic routing via WireGuard is just close to impossible with the way WireGuard is specified. It is not a simple tunnel but applies some route limits on top which you can't really disable. Also because of multicast issues you can't run ospfd over wg(4) so I had to put a gif tunnel in a wg tunnel to have dynamic routing. -- :wq Claudio
