Re: Current bird via bookworm-backports?

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 17:25, wrote: > > If you know about a nice implementation of such selection I could use as a > > reference, feel free to share. > > I know some Linux distributions use GeoDNS service(s) to redirect a > CNAME record dynamically to an approximate close mirror based on the >

Re: Current bird via bookworm-backports?

Jakub, On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 14:08, Jakub Ružička wrote: > > First, thank you all for these emergent mirrors :) > > On 4/23/24 20:26, netravnen+birdl...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 at 14:50, Jakub Ružička wrote: > > A next step could be to add a list at the homepage >

Re: Current bird via bookworm-backports?

Kees, On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 14:28, Kees Meijs | Nefos wrote: > Would you like a mirror in the Netherlands as well? > > If so, what resources would you need? This is the current size of the individual repo's 679Mknot-resolver 3.9Gknot-dns 277Mbird2 Access via http and https are

Re: Current bird via bookworm-backports?

A copy to the list On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 at 20:00, wrote: > > Dear Jakub, > > Fantastic to hear about the RSYNC option is now available. > > I enabled an RSYNC mirror for our volunteer run MIRROR service - > dotsrc.org - in Denmark. > > https://mirrors.dotsrc.org/bird2/ > >

Re: Is there a way to merge communities from the same prefixes?

Hello Valery, On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 at 13:20, Valery Lutoshkin wrote: > For example: > peer 1: 1.1.1.1/32 1:100 > peer 2: 1.1.1.1/32 2:200 > peer 3: 1.1.1.1/32 3:300 > > If the last one was chosen, the result is 1.1.1.1/32 3:300 > > If there is any way to collect all communities and attach them to

Re: Bird just doesn't want to find OSPF neighbors although they are there and can communicate

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 02:01, Lukas Haase wrote: > I am having big trouble getting Bird/OSPF working. I broke it down to a > simple setup: > Point-to-point wireguard link between Node1 (192.168.56.224/31) and Node2 > (192.168.56.225/31) using nbma. > There were nothing but troubles with

Re: bgp_large_community wildcard in conditional

Some people will use two tables for exactly this reason. One table contains the PROD data (master). The other table (non-master) contains the data with revised (new) filters applied. -- Chriztoffer On Sun, 17 Oct 2021, 23:06 Ross Tajvar, wrote: > It may be better to throw a syntax error and

Re: Handling IPv6 BGP routes with :: next-hop

On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 09:13, Alexander Shikov wrote: > The first (best) route has next-hop '::' and routers of some of our customers > started dropping BGP sessions with 'Invalid next-hop' cause. > > I dumped packets coming from customer 2001:7f8:63::f2 and it is really > sending next-hop > as

Re: BGP on GRE Idle

A "famous" saying goes if it is not DNS, then it is MTU. GRE tunnel uses MTU 1476 from your output. Does the gre tunnel work if you lower the mtu setting? Does end to end ping(6) work through the gre tunnel= (I.e. can the end points reach each other through the tunnel)

Re: BIRD 2.0.8

On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 at 19:36, Ondrej Zajicek wrote: > If you or > someone could push that to testing before Debian 11 release, i would > make a branch with important patches. has it been considered _in the past_ to permanently adopt a branching model for releases similar to how git-flow

Re: BIRD 2.0.8

On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 at 20:39, Peter Hurtenbach wrote: > You can take a look at the Debian Git repository: > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/bird2 I suppose the CI/CD script is "slightly" outdated... https://salsa.debian.org/debian/bird2/-/blob/master/.gitlab-ci.yml (No mention of FreeBSD 12,

Re: Bird pipe/filter change on "external" conditions

On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 at 19:34, ico wrote: > But using symlinks sounds better than overwriting config files. Depends partly on your preference, too. Using one large config file. And updating a symlink to do dst=bird_202002231200.conf src=bird.conf rm $src ln -sr $src $dst Is one way. Another

Re: JSON Route Table Displays

Alistair, On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 at 20:51: > See the patch in > https://bird.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/2018-March/012088.html Do you use this patch in a prod version of bird at netflix? -- Chriztoffer

Re: Socket: Permission denied

Hi, > And I had another question about router id, in the configuration > file, it is said that the router id should be an IPv6. But when I put > my IPv6 in it, I get the following error: bird: > /etc/bird/bird6.conf:21:11 Router IDs must be entered as hexadecimal > numbers or IPv4 addresses

Re: Duplicated routes received from Route Reflectors

Hi, On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 09:37, Délsio Cabá wrote: > We have a installed 2 BIRD RR (10.200.2.125 and 10.200.2.124) just > installed to use as reflectors on our network > > We noticed the client is adding 2 entries to the routing table. > > Is this normal? > > Taking into consideration we do

bgp_large_community wildcard in conditional

On 29 Oct 2020 15:00, Brooks Swinnerton wrote: > I was wondering if it's possible to create a conditional that matches on > a wildcard for a part of a BGP large community. For example: > > if ([*, 600, 6939]) ~ bgp_large_community then >   reject; > > This currently results in a syntax error at

Re: Bird 2.0.8 release date question

On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 at 18:42, Piotr KOWALCZYK wrote: > Could you please tell us when do you plan to release next 2.0.8 version? > There were 0 updates this year and I wonder if this will happen this year? > Approximate release date would be nice Looking at the old mail thread

Re: Status of implementing multicast routing

On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 at 12:53, Bernd Naumann wrote: > I followed the traces of Joachim Nilsson and found many useful > information on his website/blog. (Try google with 'multicast > site:https://troglobit.com/', i.e. https://troglobit.com/howto/multicast/) > > I also found that he has updated and

Re: [PATCH] Enable class E address space via --enable-class-e flag

On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 15:14, Chriztoffer Hansen wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 05:26, Lincoln Dale wrote: > > Marking class E addresses as bogus was previously discussed in Sep 2017 > > with no patch and no proposed change of behaviour > > (https://bird.network.cz/pipe

Re: [PATCH] Enable class E address space via --enable-class-e flag

On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 05:26, Lincoln Dale wrote: > Marking class E addresses as bogus was previously discussed in Sep 2017 with > no patch and no proposed change of behaviour > (https://bird.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/2017-September/011558.html). Not entirely true,

Re: Bird2 for Debian Jessie?

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 at 14:09, Skyler Mäntysaari wrote: > I cannot do much about it, as VyOS 1.2 is based of Jessie and I'm using > it but that's beside the point I think. Any you do not dare to run community edition rolling-release VyOS 1.3, yet?

Re: Bird2 for Debian Jessie?

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 at 07:02, Skyler Mäntysaari wrote: > It seems weird to have it only in unstable/testing tough, as coming from > Ubuntu and it's there already without needing to do really anything to > repos. Ubuntu is progressive compared to Debian being more conservative. Debian is simply

Re: Bird2 for Debian Jessie?

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 11:00, Skyler Mäntysaari wrote: > The repo at https://bird.network.cz/debian/ only has 1.6.x. Debian unstable or testing? apt install -t unstable|testing bird2 * *requires unstable and/or testing in sources.list or sources.list.d/ packages.debian.org/sid/bird2 --

Re: BIRD - RoA with aggregated prefixes - issue

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 07:40, Javor Kliachev wrote: > We don't use BGP aggregated routes but our customers are using. Do your best to discourage your customer using aggregate BGP routes? (since if not you, your upstreams deploying ROA validation on sessions towards you will discard the

Re: BIRD - RoA with aggregated prefixes - issue

Javor, On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 at 08:32, Javor Kliachev wrote: > We're using BIRD 1.6.4 as Route Server. > > Recently we have implemented ROA prefix validation but we have hit the issue > with prefixes that are aggregated only. > > What do I mean: When the prefix is aggregate and has something like

Re: Migration from bird 1.6 to 2.0.

Hi Mike, On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 20:21, Mike Neo wrote: > is it recommended to migrate from bird 1.6 to 2.0 if I use bird for an easy > bgp router with 2-3 peers? > What's the difference between 1.6 and 2.0? There is no active incentive to migrate to Bird2 (yet). As Ross mentioned, RPKI is

Re: BIRD unknown character using text editor

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 15:51, Fabiano D'Agostino wrote: > solved using dos2unix [image: image.png] "Notepad++ is a good friend" when running Win and editing *nix files

Re: BGP password

Fabiano D'Agostino wrote on 2020-05-12 17:27: > I am using BIRD 2, my configuration looks like the following: > > ipv4 table t4; > > protocol pipe { >   table master4; >   peer table t4; >   import all; >   export all; > } > > protocol bgp { >   multihop 15; >   neighbor 192.168.1.2 as 1; >  

Re: BGP password

Dear Fabiano, Fabiano D'Agostino wrote on 2020-05-12 14:29: > when I try to set up a password for a BGP peering the connection state > is Connect and not Established, so BGP is not importing prefixes.  > > The neighbor which is doing a peering is a Cisco router and I set up the > password with

Re: BGP between VMs

Fabiano, RTFM is the short answer, (not trying to be rude here ) EBGP between two bgp speakers (eg. VMs) is rule of thumb done using interfaces on each ebgp speaker in a shared L2 domain, with ip addresses on each interface in a shared subnet, eg. Ipv4 /30, /31, IPv6 /64, /126, /127. If both

Re: BGP between VMs

On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 at 22:29, Fabiano D'Agostino wrote: > I am new to Bird and I would like to do the following. I have two VMs and I > would like to make a BGP peering between the two VMs, is it possible using > Bird? Certainly, the best option is to use a search engine for easy to get

Re: ROA with static protocol in BIRD 2

Hi, Robert Scheck skrev: > Hello Maria, > > as of writing, OpenBSD rpki-client produces an output file for BIRD 1.x > like the following, where IPv4 and IPv6 end up in the same table. For me > this ends with "This is an IPv4 router, therefore IPv6 addresses are not > supported" error on BIRD 1.x

Re: Disregard OSPF path

Robert, Robert Sander wrote: > On 17.02.20 09:03, Kees Meijs wrote: >> The path I'm trying to avoid has the lowest OSPF cost but in the >> physical world the most... :-) > I always thought the OSPF cost represents the "physical" cost of a link. Not necessarily. From RFC 2328, p. 18 [0]: > A

[bird-users] [bird-users] Re: Bird 2.x / OSPF v3 over ptp tunnels

Joakim Tjernlund wrote on 11/02/2020 19:27: > On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 18:18 +0100, Alarig Le Lay wrote: >> On mar. 11 févr. 17:52:29 2020, Bastien Durel wrote: >>> 7: wg4b: mtu 1420 state UNKNOWN qlen 1000 >>> inet6 fe80::3/128 scope link >>>valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever >>>

Re: determining ipv4 or ipv6 net in filter

Maria, On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 02:03, Robert Blayzor wrote: > Excellent. I like the custom attributes for route tagging. However in > the docs I cannot find what "types" are supported for custom attributes. > For example: > > attribute string foo; > > Results in an unsupported type, yet:

Re: determining ipv4 or ipv6 net in filter

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 20:27, Robert Blayzor wrote: > Migrating from BIRD 1.6 to 2.0 and I would like to consolidate some BGP > filters and use them for IPv4 or IPv6 sessions > > What is the best way to enumerate if a net is IPv4 or IPv6 if you wanted > to make a if/then/else on.. ie: > >

Fwd: [PDB Announce] Call for volunteers for PeeringDB

Fwd to bird-users list, because I thought mayhaps (individual_count >= 1) might be interested... Best Regards, Chriztoffer -- Forwarded message - From: Stephen McManus Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 22:10 Subject: [PDB Announce] Call for volunteers for PeeringDB To: Hi all, We are

Re: [bird-users] BIRD 2.0.6 and 1.6.8 on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS / Bionic Beaver

com/en/bionic-backports/allpackages [1]: https://packages.ubuntu.com/en/bionic/allpackages -- [ have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? ] [ Chriztoffer Hansen+1 914 3133553 ] [ 0x18dd23c550293098de07052a9dcf2ca008ebd2e8 ]

Re: Multisite BGP - One site behind OpenVPN

The OpenVPN solution you are mentioning. Is IMHO only really nessesary og you have plans for further sites in the near future and do not want to renumber and/or change your BGP configuration in regards to how you peer with $ISP. A possible option is to announce both Main sites /24 and a cover

Re: Multisite BGP - One site behind OpenVPN

Run BGP with $ISP on both Main and Satellite site... Just announce a unique /24 prefix from each site. No need to run VPN, unless you are using private addresses. Ensure to have ROA & route objects correctly registered at RIR database. -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?