On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 12:43:09PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > There is currently a race in bgpd when multiple nexthop become invalid at > the same time. The problem is that the decision process may select an > alternative path that also has a no longer valid nexthop but the process > that does all the adjustments did not reach that prefix yet. > The main issue here is that the RDE uses the true_nexthop to communicate > this change but the true_nexthop is 0 or :: in this case. > > This diff solves the issue by no longer using true_nexthop in the kroute > message but instead have the kroute code do the lookup instead. The state > in kroute is always up to date so the system knows if the nexthop is valid > or not and either issues a change or remove depending on that. > > With this the rde no longer uses the true_nexthop (it is only there to be > reported to bgpctl). It only cares about exit_nexthop, validity and the > connected network info. All of those should not cause any problems during > nexthop flips.
This reads fine. If you fix the grammar of the comment, then it's ok, e.g.: > + * Ignore the nexthop for VPN routes. The gateway is a forced s/a // > + * to an mpe(4) interface route using an MPLS label.
