Claudio Jeker(cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com) on 2021.04.28 12:40:46 +0200:
> At the moment bgpd will fall back to IPv4 unicast if there was no match in
> the multiprotocol capabilities between local and remote peer.
> This is not correct, if the router expects a certain AFI/SAFI for the
> session then
What I saw is a Ubiquity router v6 session misconfigured to ask for v4
routes. The current logic decides the MP is inconsistant, and thus AFI.
If no AFI, then provide v4... anyways, that cannot be right.
It was worse because the v4 received routes on the famously high quality
Ubiquity were acted
At the moment bgpd will fall back to IPv4 unicast if there was no match in
the multiprotocol capabilities between local and remote peer.
This is not correct, if the router expects a certain AFI/SAFI for the
session then it should not fall back to IPv4 unicast.
An example is when bgpd uses IPv6
