RARE user and assistance email list

[mc36 <>]

thanks... if you wish, we can tshoot together: letsmeet.hu/carmen ?

On 1/10/23 13:01, Maria Del Carmen Misa Moreira wrote:
> Hi Csaba,
>
> Here it is
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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 []
> > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-