Bruce, what I found was after "create protocol ospf6 0 export static-to-ospf", when ipv4 static route (like 20.0.0.0/24) was pushed as REPLACE to rib, on rib part in function PolicyRedistTable<A>::add_route, _redist_map was trying to get protocols involved in redistribution with these tags. But only ospfv3 is in this set, not ospfv2. This is not right to me. What is wrong?
Thanks. Li --- On Fri, 12/4/09, Li Zhao <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Li Zhao <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Xorp-hackers] ospf4 and ospf6 can not apply export policy at > the same time > To: "Bruce Simpson" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Date: Friday, December 4, 2009, 4:19 PM > new updates: > when I debug PolicyRedistTable<IPv4>::del_redist and > PolicyRedistTable<IPv4>::add_redist in rib, I found > that > > if ospf6 exports "static-to-ospf", the ipv4 static route is > removed from > ospfv2, but added to ospfv3. This does not make sense to > me. > > --- On Fri, 12/4/09, Li Zhao <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > From: Li Zhao <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Xorp-hackers] ospf4 and ospf6 can not > apply export policy at the same time > > To: "Bruce Simpson" <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Date: Friday, December 4, 2009, 2:20 PM > > > > Actually, I think the client might be rib: > > PolicyRedistTable<IPv4>::del_redist. > > > > --- On Fri, 12/4/09, Li Zhao <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > From: Li Zhao <[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: [Xorp-hackers] ospf4 and ospf6 can > not > > apply export policy at the same time > > > To: "Bruce Simpson" <[email protected]> > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > Date: Friday, December 4, 2009, 12:27 PM > > > I am not quite familiar with xorp > > > code. But based on my past experiences > > > and common sense I am guessing ospf4 and ospf6 > should > > > register with > > > policy/rib separately even though they can share > the > > same > > > policy cli name. > > > When I debug ospf4, I found > > > policy_redist4_0_1_delete_route4 was called > > > after I apply same policy to ospf6. I am tracing > who > > is the > > > client side > > > which might be policy. Another thing, if I > > redistribute > > > static to ospf4, but redistribute connected to > ospf6, > > then > > > ospf6 won't collide with ospf4 > > > and ospf4 looks fine. If i have same > redistribute > > same > > > protocol no matter > > > it is static or connected into ospf4 and ospf6, > ospf4 > > is > > > always shaken > > > down. > > > > > > --- On Fri, 12/4/09, Bruce Simpson <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > From: Bruce Simpson <[email protected]> > > > > Subject: Re: [Xorp-hackers] ospf4 and ospf6 > can > > not > > > apply export policy at the same time > > > > To: "Li Zhao" <[email protected]> > > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > > Date: Friday, December 4, 2009, 11:50 AM > > > > Li Zhao wrote: > > > > > I do not know how to report to Trac > ticket > > yet. > > > But my > > > > config is like this: > > > > > > > > > > 1. create a policy like > "static-to-ospf" { > > from > > > { > > > > protocol static} then { accept} }. > > > > > > > > > > 2. apply to ospf4 by " protocol ospf4 > > export > > > > static-ospf " I can use "show ospf4 > database" > > see > > > these ipv4 > > > > external LSAs related to ipv4 static > routes. > > > > > > > > > > 3. then apply to ospf6 via "protocol > ospf6 > > 0 > > > export > > > > static-to-ospf", "show ospf6 database" > looks > > fine. But > > > "show > > > > ospf4 databse" will not show previous > > > > > ipv4 extrenal LSAs, even if I use > different > > > policy > > > > names that does not help. > > > > > > > > > > 4. if i remove policy from ospf6 > "delete > > > protocol > > > > ospf6 export". The ipv4 external LSAs are > > coiming > > > back > > > > automatically. > > > > > > > > > > I am going though the ospf and policy > codes > > to > > > see > > > > why? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for digging into this. From what > you've > > > described, > > > > it sounds like the issue may be in policy. > > > > > > > > Both ospf4 and ospf6 should register > separate > > origin > > > tables > > > > with the RIB process. These tables are > > completely > > > separate > > > > (inside RIB, v6 and v4 are implemented as > > separate > > > instances > > > > of Rib). > > > > > > > > Static routes, however, get redistributed > via > > policy. > > > If > > > > policy is using the same tag(s) to tell > if/when > > it > > > already > > > > did a redist, that is the most likely root > > cause. > > > > > > > > cheers, > > > > BMS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Xorp-hackers mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Xorp-hackers mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xorp-hackers mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers > _______________________________________________ Xorp-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
