On 30 Apr 2007, at 10:51, Claudio Jeker wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 04:39:07AM +0100, Jon Morby wrote:
I've updated to the latest snapshot and am seeing the following from
bgpd
Apr 29 03:35:18 l3-c1 bgpd[28142]: fatal in RDE: aspath_count:
bula bula
Apr 29 03:35:18 l3-c1 bgpd[30043]: Los
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 04:39:07AM +0100, Jon Morby wrote:
> I've updated to the latest snapshot and am seeing the following from
> bgpd
>
> Apr 29 03:35:18 l3-c1 bgpd[28142]: fatal in RDE: aspath_count: bula bula
> Apr 29 03:35:18 l3-c1 bgpd[30043]: Lost child: route decision engine
> exited
I've updated to the latest snapshot and am seeing the following from
bgpd
Apr 29 03:35:18 l3-c1 bgpd[28142]: fatal in RDE: aspath_count: bula bula
Apr 29 03:35:18 l3-c1 bgpd[30043]: Lost child: route decision engine
exited
Apr 29 03:35:18 l3-c1 bgpd[765]: fatal in SE: pipe write error:
Broke
Claudio Jeker wrote:
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 02:00:49AM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
I got bgpd crashing and kill itself in current snapshot of March 18.
Happen twice so far, but I can't see why yet.
Here is the error message I got:
Mar 20 01:34:14 vcnam1 bgpd[18551]: fatal in SE: session_dis
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 02:00:49AM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
> I got bgpd crashing and kill itself in current snapshot of March 18.
>
> Happen twice so far, but I can't see why yet.
>
> Here is the error message I got:
>
> Mar 20 01:34:14 vcnam1 bgpd[18551]: fatal in SE: session_dispatch_imsg
I got bgpd crashing and kill itself in current snapshot of March 18.
Happen twice so far, but I can't see why yet.
Here is the error message I got:
Mar 20 01:34:14 vcnam1 bgpd[18551]: fatal in SE: session_dispatch_imsg:
pipe closed: Operation now in progress
Mar 20 01:34:14 vcnam1 bgpd[20582]:
* Toni Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-14 16:21]:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 14.07.2005 at 09:07:48 +0200, Toni Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > imho just dropping one of them should be sufficient to solve the
> > problem if they are indistinguishable anyway (perhaps together with a
> > warning)
Hi,
On Thu, 14.07.2005 at 09:07:48 +0200, Toni Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> imho just dropping one of them should be sufficient to solve the
> problem if they are indistinguishable anyway (perhaps together with a
> warning)?
sorry for the noise - of course that might be not so good an ide
Hi Claudio,
On Wed, 13.07.2005 at 23:58:30 +0200, Claudio Jeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For some reasons you end up with two prefixes in the RIB that are
> indistinguishable. The decision process should in any case find a more
> prefered route or it will fatal with the given message.
imho ju
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 11:22:08PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm running OpenBSD's bgpd on one of my machines (i386) and, for some
> reasons, a snapshot of July 12th. Before, I ran a snap from May 2nd (?)
> which worked very nicely wrt. BGP, with a session lifetime in the
> neighborhood
* Toni Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-13 23:34]:
> I'm running OpenBSD's bgpd on one of my machines (i386) and, for some
> reasons, a snapshot of July 12th. Before, I ran a snap from May 2nd (?)
> which worked very nicely wrt. BGP, with a session lifetime in the
> neighborhood of 10 days (I r
Hi,
I'm running OpenBSD's bgpd on one of my machines (i386) and, for some
reasons, a snapshot of July 12th. Before, I ran a snap from May 2nd (?)
which worked very nicely wrt. BGP, with a session lifetime in the
neighborhood of 10 days (I rebooted the box for unrelated reasons).
The machine itself
12 matches
Mail list logo
