OSPF bug?

[Ondrej Feela Filip]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, Mark Glines wrote:

> Hi!  We've been attempting to use bird 1.0.5 on our test network,
> but OSPF didn't seem to be propogating correctly.  Rather, it was
> talking amongst its peer routers properly, and propogating routes
> correctly, but forgetting to set the gateways (which kinda defeats
> the purpose).
> 

Hi!
I'm sorry that I'm answering so late. I'm quite busy now. (But good news 
is, that one company will pay for my upgrades of Bird, so I'll have more 
time for it.)

> For instance, we have one machine (test1, 192.168.0.254) which is
> directly attached to 192.168.0.0/24 (obviously) and 192.168.1.0/24,
> as well as our uplink to the internet.  Another machine
> (192.168.0.60) is directly attached to 192.168.0.0/24 (obviously),
> 192.168.4.0/24 and 192.168.7.0/24.
> 
> Once they had flooded LS's and entered OSPF "full" mode with
> eachother, test1's routing table looked like:
> 
> test1:~# ip route
> XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX/27 dev eth0  proto kernel  scope link  src XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX
> 192.168.7.0/24 dev eth2  proto bird
> 192.168.4.0/24 dev eth2  proto bird
> 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth1  proto kernel  scope link  src 192.168.1.254
> 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth2  proto kernel  scope link  src 192.168.0.254
> default via XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX dev eth0  proto bird
> 
> 
> 
> I rooted around in the source for a while, and managed to make it work.
> Attached is the patch (which also includes a small documentation fix).

Thank you!

> This patch makes bird set gateways properly:
> 
> test1:~# ip route
> XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX/27 dev eth0  proto kernel  scope link  src XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX
> 192.168.7.0/24 via 192.168.0.60 dev eth2  proto bird
> 192.168.4.0/24 via 192.168.0.60 dev eth2  proto bird
> 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth1  proto kernel  scope link  src 192.168.1.254
> 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth2  proto kernel  scope link  src 192.168.0.254
> default via XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX dev eth0  proto bird
> 
> 
> 
> Since this seems like such a silly bug and is so unlikely to be
> overlooked (because it rendered bird's OSPF mostly useless), I have
> to ask if we configured something wrong, or managed to mess something
> else up.  Please also find attached one of our config files (they all

:-) No it was really bug in OSPF. Thank you for the fix. I don't 
understand how this happened. :-(

> look pretty similar to this).  What happened?  I'd love to hear your
> comments.

Just stupid bug in my last bugfix. :-)

> 
> Thanks for your time,

Thank you!

> Mark
> 

				Feela