1.1.3 segfaults on seeing certain routes

[KORN Andras]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 02:08:40PM +0200, KORN Andras wrote:

> > > 21-09-2009 12:55:08 <WARN> Received HELLO packet address (172.18.32.254) is inconsistent with the primary address of interface tap4.
> > > 
> > > It indeed is inconsistent, because all tap interfaces have the same address
> > > on each router (specific to the router, with a /32 mask)
> > 
> > BIRD expects that interface uses either 'standard' network address, or address
> > with /32 mask and specified peer address (configured with 'ip address add IP1
> > peer IP2 dev DEV' or similarly using ifconfig and pointopoint). In both cases
> > there should not be this warning as this warning means that Hello message was
> > ignored.
> 
> OK, I will retry with this kind of peer setup, but I think I can't test
> anything meaningfully while my routes cause a segfault.

I can confirm that I indeed don't get the warning this way; however, bird
doesn't seem to import some 'alien' routes that are imported if I specify
them inside static { }.

I had these static routes in my kernel routing table:

172.18.4.0/24 dev wifi  proto kernel  scope link  src 172.18.4.254 
172.18.0.0/22 dev intra  proto kernel  scope link  src 172.18.1.254 
172.18.8.0/21 dev dmz  proto kernel  scope link  src 172.18.8.254 

And bird didn't send them to its peer.

When I specified them in static { }, they were missing the "src" attribute
but were propagated over OSPF.

Nevertheless, bird is approaching usability for me now, although I haven't
yet dared try it on my real routing tables. :)

I certainly like the approach a lot better than quagga & co.

Andras

-- 
 Andras Korn <korn at elan.rulez.org> - <http://chardonnay.math.bme.hu/~korn/>
            Expert - Someone who knows less, but makes more money.