RARE user and assistance email list

[Maria Del Carmen Misa Moreira <>]

Hi Csaba,

Here it is

Attachment: multione.zip
Description: Zip archive

> On 10 Jan 2023, at 12:57, mc36 <> wrote:
> 
> could you please drop me the topology?
> thanks,
> cs
> 
> On 1/10/23 12:35,  wrote:
>> Hi Csaba,
>> Thanks!
>> I enable ECMP and add-path TX/RX in all the BGP processes but I continue 
>> with only one route in the table.
>> Now I have another question:
>> The ping and traceback are fine without the flow label:
>>      R11#traceroute fd01:40::44 vrf VRF_EXT source loopback100
>>      1 fd01:20:11::1 time=2
>>      2 fd01:20:14::4 time=1
>>      3 fd01:40::44 time=2
>> But when I add the flow label it never reaches the destination but the 2nd 
>> hope it   s exactly the same as in the previous trace path and the 3rd 
>> hope it   s the IP of the interface of the same router, I mean 
>> fd01:20:14::4 and fd01:20:44::4 belong to R4, the 1st one is connected to 
>> R1 and the 2nd one to R44 which is my destination:
>>       R11#traceroute fd01:40::44 vrf VRF_EXT source loopback100 flow 65540
>>       1 fd01:20:11::1 time=0
>>       2 fd01:20:14::4 time=1
>>       3 fd01:20:44::4 time=2
>>      4 null time=1000
>> I would expect the same behaviour in both cases simply because the 1st and 
>> 2nd hopes are the same so how is this possible?
>> Regards,
>> Carmen Misa
>>> On 9 Jan 2023, at 16:13, mc36 <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> wait a bit... for policy routing, you even not need a routing protocol to 
>>> forward packets...
>>> if it matches the acl, it overrides normal forwarding decision and sends 
>>> out the packet...
>>> to have an other prefix, you need to enable ecmp to your bgp process.. 
>>> it's a local decision,
>>> and the prefixes must not be better or worse, exactly equal, in terms of 
>>> bgp best path...
>>> to overcome this, you could enable addpath to all the bgp sessions...
>>> br,
>>> cs
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 1/9/23 16:09, Maria Del Carmen Misa Moreira wrote:
>>>> Hello again Csaba!
>>>> At this moment the issue comes in BGP because it only learns the prefix 
>>>> on one interface:
>>>>          B      fd01:40::44/128       20/0      ethernet1.30   
>>>> fd01:30:11::1   00:28:31
>>>> Here it should be the same for ethernet1.20, this is a case of bgp 
>>>> multiparth multi-as because each interface belong to a different AS 
>>>> (ethernet1.30 to AS30 and ethernet1.20 to AS20) so with the PBR I   m 
>>>> forcing to use AS20 when it match the flow label but it doesn   t know  
>>>> the route.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Carmen Misa
>>>>> On 9 Jan 2023, at 15:02, mc36 < <>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> hi,
>>>>> when it comes to software routing, it supports everything all the time, 
>>>>> even no command to select a profile! :)
>>>>> br,
>>>>> cs
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 1/9/23 14:54, Maria Del Carmen Misa Moreira wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Csaba,
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> Just to be sure, the version that I     m using allows to do PBR based 
>>>>>> on the flow label by using an access-list?
>>>>>> I     m just asking because on the switch we needed to change the 
>>>>>> profile.
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Carmen Misa
>>>>>>> On 9 Jan 2023, at 13:46, mc36 < <>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> here is the mpls test case we discussed briefly: 
>>>>>>> http://sources.freertr.org/cfg/rout-bgp036.tst 
>>>>>>> <http://sources.freertr.org/cfg/rout-bgp036.tst>
>>>>>>> you can start it this way on your local computer:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> wget freertr.org/rtr.zip <http://freertr.org/rtr.zip>
>>>>>>> unzip rtr.zip
>>>>>>> cd src
>>>>>>> ./c.sh
>>>>>>> ./tw.sh rout-bgp036.tst
>>>>>>> telnet localhost 20001
>>>>>>> telnet localhost 20002
>>>>>>> telnet localhost 20003
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> r1 is a pe with customer vrfs v2,v3,v4
>>>>>>> r2 is a p without customer vrfs
>>>>>>> r3 is a pe with customer vrfs v2,v3,v4
>>>>>>> v1 is the core vrf everywhere... i used static routing in this core 
>>>>>>> vrf but you can reuse your ospf to distribute the loopbacks...
>>>>>>> bgp on the pe routers should have vpnuni for ipv4 customer routes and 
>>>>>>> ovpnuni for ipv6 customer routes
>>>>>>> then you can redistribute whatever you want into the afi-vrf v2..v4.. 
>>>>>>> even an whole other routing protocol,
>>>>>>> like an ebgp process toward the customer router... one more note, 
>>>>>>> you'll need mutual redistribution between
>>>>>>> the ibgp and the ebgp processes to have connectivity...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> doing this way you can eliminate the subinterfaces in the core and 
>>>>>>> the burden of running paralell routing protocols to have more vrfs....
>>>>>>> morever it's more secure because the core routes are fully separated 
>>>>>>> from the customer routes... just check it out! :)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> br,
>>>>>>> cs
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 1/9/23 13:36, mc36 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/9/23 13:16, Maria Del Carmen Misa Moreira wrote:
>>>>>>>>> https://letsmeet.hu/multione <https://letsmeet.hu/multione> 
>>>>>>>>> <https://letsmeet.hu/multione <https://letsmeet.hu/multione>>
>>>>>>>>> I     m here
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 9 Jan 2023, at 13:10, mc36 < <> 
>>>>>>>>>> < <>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> okk then please drop me the zoom link and the topology.... im also 
>>>>>>>>>> free from now.. :)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/9/23 11:50, Maria Del Carmen Misa Moreira wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Csaba,
>>>>>>>>>>> Here it is. I         m completely free today or the rest of the 
>>>>>>>>>>> week, just let me know.
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9 Jan 2023, at 11:02, mc36 < <> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> < <>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>> please drop me the zip, it would be much easier for me to 
>>>>>>>>>>>> troubleshoot you on my local computer... :)
>>>>>>>>>>>> if you would like to join the session then lets have the zoom 
>>>>>>>>>>>> when you feel it fits to your time...
>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> cs
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/9/23 10:59, Maria Del Carmen Misa Moreira wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Csaba,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right now I have a weird behaviour, I will try to explain it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> here         1st problem: ping from R11 -> R3 works (R11 -> R1 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -> R2 -> R3) but the other way around not (R3 -> R2 -> R1 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (stops here and not reaches R11). This is not very clear to my 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> why because at IP level it should work in both directions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd problem: traceroute from R11 (AS 100) -> R33 (AS 300) is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fine: AS path 30 300 because it follows this path: R11 (AS 100) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -> R1 (AS 30) -> R2 (AS 30) -> R3(AS 30) -> R33 (AS 300) but 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ping doesn         t work (it reaches R3 but not R33).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In general, the ping and the traceroute are fine until it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches the last router of the client (RX).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can send you an updated version of the simulation or directly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain it to you in zoom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carmen Misa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Jan 2023, at 10:19, mc36 < <> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> < <>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good to hear, thanks for the confirmation!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and congrats again for your nice topology!:)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> br,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/23 10:17, Maria Del Carmen Misa Moreira wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Csaba,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! Now it         s working perfectly, I missed that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carmen Misa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> El 4 ene 2023, a las 21:59, mc36 < <> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> < <>>> escribi     :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're unbelivebeable! you built up a whole topology alone, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without asking a question! congrats!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here is my findings after checking out the r4-r44 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connection... i enabled cdp on the interface:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R44#show cdp neighbor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface     hostname     iface                     ipv4    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  ipv6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ethernet1     R4                             ethernet3     
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> null     null
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R44#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R4#show cdp neighbor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface     hostname     iface     ipv4     ipv6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R4#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it indicates a one-way connection....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R4#show interfaces ethernet3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ethernet3 is up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state changed 3 times, last at 2023-01-04 20:42:07, 00:10:46 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last packet input never ago, output 00:00:00 ago, drop never 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type is ethernet, hwaddr=0000.4444.0005, mtu=1500, bw=100mbps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> received 0 packets (0 bytes) dropped 0 packets (0 bytes)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transmitted 1817 packets (103734 bytes) macsec=false 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sgt=false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R4#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on r4 i cannot see received packets... on r44 i have both rx 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and tx:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R44#show interfaces ethernet1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ethernet1 is up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state changed 3 times, last at 2023-01-04 20:42:07, 00:12:10 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last packet input 00:00:00 ago, output 00:00:00 ago, drop 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00:00:00 ago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type is ethernet, hwaddr=0000.8888.0001, mtu=1500, bw=100mbps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> received 6069 packets (363198 bytes) dropped 1982 packets 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (112310 bytes)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transmitted 4088 packets (246816 bytes) macsec=false 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sgt=false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R44#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then grepping around for 46025 showed me that you reused 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this port for both r4-r44 and r3-r33 connection!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you had a competition, one or the other was able to use 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the interface and communicate... :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> br,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/4/23 21:26, Maria Del Carmen Misa Moreira wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Csaba,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I attach here all the hw and sw files that I         m 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using for the simulation with topology.png and readme.txt 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files for clarification and start_topology.sh to load and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start all the routers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the boxes are using Freertr and the log at the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning is fine without errors:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> info cfgInit.doInit:cfgInit.java:775 booting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> info cfgInit.doInit:cfgInit.java:957 initializing hardware
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> info cfgInit.doInit:cfgInit.java:963 applying defaults
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> info cfgInit.doInit:cfgInit.java:984 applying configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> info cfgInit.doInit:cfgInit.java:1019 boot completed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow I will be able from 8h until 17h or later if it    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      s needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheeers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carmen Misa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> El 4 ene 2023, a las 13:24, mc36 < 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <> < <>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> escribi     :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so bgp peer establishment is somewhat random: the original 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rfc does not mention that the higher/lower ip should 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initiate the tcp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so i'm copying the ios xr behavior: it tries active then 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passive open with random timers and fingers crossed, it'll 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come up...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all my interop with cisco xr, cisco xe, junos, frr and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self tests (about 800 bgp tests in total) pass fine 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without a single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retry so it cannot be that bad.. the only issue i know 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about is with bird in my dn42 peerings, which does 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wildcard listen on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> port 179, causing every active open to succeed, but 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes it's simultaneous with their active open 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resulting in collisions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the bird side.. then their side closes one or the other 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without a notify message causing log flood on freerouter 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> side
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until the session finally comes up...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your topology, i've a lot of questions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -what is that (as10, as20, as30) notation? the common way 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that one box belongs to one asn?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -what box is freerouter and what the other boxes are?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -do you see anything in the freerouter and the opposite 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> box's logs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -can you share the simulation in order to be able to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reproduce?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -if not, can we have a debug session together?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/4/23 12:24, Maria Del Carmen Misa Moreira wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a full mesh topology RX configured with iBGP, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OSPF, 3 VLANs and 3 VRFs (BGP is configured with the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> address of the loopbacks: 1 loopback per VLAN). Every 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> router has a client RXX with OSPF passive, eBGP, a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different AS number and 1 VRF.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (AS100)                 R11 ---- (AS10, AS20, AS30) R1 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---- (AS10, AS20, AS30)R4 ---- (AS400) R44
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *|*|**
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (AS200) R22 ---- (AS10, AS20, AS30) R2 ---- (AS10, AS20, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS30) R3 ----(AS300) R33
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topology is working fine so I can ping each other, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> iBGP is up but eBGP is not completly up. I noted that R11 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and R22 are always up but for R33 and R44 it depends... 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the behaviour that I'm seeing: I run the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation and R11/R22 bring up and     also R33 (not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R44), then, I run again the simulation with exactly the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same configuration and sometimes it happens that R44 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brings up and not R33 or even worst none of them (R33,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R44).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any idea? I have no idea why only one of those (R33, R44) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brings up and not the other and when you run it again it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be opposite behaviour.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Camen Misa
>>>>>>>>> 
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
>> View/Reply Online (#950): https://groups.io/g/freertr/message/950
>> Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/96059619/6006518
>> Group Owner: 
>> Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/freertr/unsub []
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature