Hi,
As far as I remember, you can set in your income filter the interface, then
the gateway (in that order) to force the interface you want.
On Wed, Mar 1, 2023, 02:18 Mirai Azayaka wrote:
> Wow, thank you so much! Setting bgp_next_hop = gw; works for me! (yeah
> I was worried that because
Hi Mirai,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 02:57:54PM -0500, Mirai Azayaka wrote:
> I am trying to send routes from my DHCPv6 prefix delegation server to
> my router using iBGP. Those delegated prefix routes on the DHCPv6
> server are installed in its kernel table, such as 2001:db8:db8::/56
> via .
Wow,
Wow, thank you so much! Setting bgp_next_hop = gw; works for me! (yeah
I was worried that because link-local address is interface-dependent,
my router wouldn't be able to know the interface. It seems my router
(also running bird) chooses the same interface as the BGP session,
which is what I want.
Juliusz Chroboczek writes:
>> My thinking was that filters may want to do something like:
>>
>> if (metric == smoothed_metric)
>> metric += 100; /* route is stable, we can apply our policy */
>>
>> but I honestly don't know if that's useful for anything in reality :)
>
> I'm a little
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 02:57:54PM -0500, Mirai Azayaka wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to send routes from my DHCPv6 prefix delegation server to
> my router using iBGP. Those delegated prefix routes on the DHCPv6
> server are installed in its kernel table, such as 2001:db8:db8::/56
> via . I
> My thinking was that filters may want to do something like:
>
> if (metric == smoothed_metric)
> metric += 100; /* route is stable, we can apply our policy */
>
> but I honestly don't know if that's useful for anything in reality :)
I'm a little conflicted on this. On the one hand, it's
Hello,
I am trying to send routes from my DHCPv6 prefix delegation server to
my router using iBGP. Those delegated prefix routes on the DHCPv6
server are installed in its kernel table, such as 2001:db8:db8::/56
via . I want to pass this information to my
router, but what the router receive is
d...@darkboxed.org writes:
> Hi Toke,
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 12:20:22PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> > I've thought about this some more, I think we absolutely shouldn't expose
>> > the smooted metric to filters. It's an implementation detail. There's a
>> > bunch of other valid
>> Agreed. https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-report/
> Done :)
Perfect, thanks a lot.
Hello!
On 2/28/23 13:13, d...@darkboxed.org wrote:
Hi Toke,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 12:20:22PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
I've thought about this some more, I think we absolutely shouldn't expose
the smooted metric to filters. It's an implementation detail. There's a
bunch of other
Hi Toke,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 12:20:22PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> > I've thought about this some more, I think we absolutely shouldn't expose
> > the smooted metric to filters. It's an implementation detail. There's a
> > bunch of other valid ways to implement this sort of
Daniel Gröber writes:
> Hi Toke,
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 12:16:01PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> >> - Add the smoothed metric as a new route attribute (so it's also
>> >> available to filters)
>> >
>> > I think doing that is a bad idea. If we keep filters from changing this we
12 matches
Mail list logo
