> > I'm playing around with pimsm4 and found a strange behavior that seems to 
> > be a bug.
> > 
> > To reproduce it, first add a cand-rp for any group-prefix and commit. Then, 
> > add a cand-bsr for the same group-prefix. When trying to commit I got the 
> > following error:
> > 
> > 102 Command failed Cannot add configure BSR with vif eth0 address 10.1.3.11 
> > for zone 224.0.0.0/4(non-scoped): already have scope zone 
> > 224.0.0.0/4(non-scoped)
> > 
> > =================================================
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] set protocols pimsm4 bootstrap cand-rp group-prefix 
> > 224.0.0.0/4 cand-rp-by-vif-name eth0
> > [edit]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] commit
> > OK
> > [edit]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] set protocols pimsm4 bootstrap cand-bsr scope-zone 
> > 224.0.0.0/4 cand-bsr-by-vif-name eth0
> > [edit]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] commit
> > Commit Failed
> > 102 Command failed Cannot add configure BSR with vif eth0 address 10.1.3.11 
> > for zone 224.0.0.0/4(non-scoped): already have scope zone 
> > 224.0.0.0/4(non-scoped)[edit]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > ==================================================

================
> I need to double-check with the PIM BSR spec, but I think that
> 224.0.0.0/4 has special meaning (it is the "global" zone) and cannot
> be configured as a scoped zone.
> Hence, the behavior is correct, though the error could be more user
> friendly.
================

Please ignore my statement above, because it is complete nonsense
(I was in a hurry and overlooked a number of things).

Yes, I think what you see is a bug.

> > In the code I found that PimNode::add_config_cand_rp adds a BSR zone when 
> > adding the RP and add_config_cand_bsr fails when finds this added zone. 
> > Also, this zone is not visible in the configuration tree (otherwise 
> > xorpsh/rtrmgr would have handled this as a modification in a existing 
> > cand-bsr, which works fine).
> > 
> > I'm wondering what would be the best way to handle this. 
> > There are a few options: We can replace the automatically created zone with 
> > the user provided one, we can report the zone to rtrmgr/xorpsh or we can 
> > reuse the created zone and merge the changes, if possible.

The second one is not really an option, because we never propagate
state back to the rtrmgr/xorpsh.
I think the correct behavior is the third one: reuse the created
zone and merge the changes (if possible).
The first one (replace the automatically created zone with the user
provided one) might result in losing the Cand-RP state, which we
definitely want to avoid.

> > What do you recommend?
> > 
> > 
> > BTW, after writing a patch how do I submit it? Just mail it to this list?

Please open a Bugzilla entry about the issue and add te patch to
that entry.

Thanks,
Pavlin

_______________________________________________
Xorp-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers

Reply via email to