Problem with bird 1.3.9 on mips/linux

[Hans van Kranenburg]

On 01/24/2013 11:35 AM, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
> On 01/24/2013 02:07 AM, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
>> On 01/24/2013 01:55 AM, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
>>> On 01/23/2013 10:55 AM, Robert Hass wrote:
>>>>> http://marc.info/?l=bird-users&m=135876825203614&w=2
>>>>
>>>> Yeah It nearly the same issue. Thanks for pointing out.
>>>> After adding multihop bird started to listen on port 179/TCP.
>>>
>>> Yes, that was me.
>>>
>>>> But do I need really to configure multihop for iBGP session ?! (I'm
>>>> from Juniper& Cisco house where for iBGP I just need IGP
>>>> reach-ability, not multihop which is only for ebgp sessions).
>>>
>>> It seems so. It's exactly the same reason that caused part of the
>>> confusion for me. I was thinking that BGP was supposed to use any other
>>> protocols to resolve a route to the iBGP peer, but BIRD wants to be told
>>> explicitely it's not on link.
>>
>> Anyway, I'm only on this list for about two weeks, but if this is a
>> question that would pop up more often, then it could be a great idea to
>> start a FAQ page on http://bird.network.cz/ , below the mailing list,
>> wiki etc.. that would answer this question as wel as...
>>
>> "I'm setting up a bird configuration file for the first time, why do I
>> have to go through 'syntax error' hell first, without it telling me
>> where's the error and what was expected"<- been there, done that so
>> many times this week, for example, the amount of having to do a ; at the
>> end of anything or just totally not doing it because then you get
>> another syntax error is really annoying and confusing when you want to
>> get a basic configuration going.
>>
>> Another FAQ candidate:
>>
>> "Why do I have to specify import at a protocol for whatever I want to
>> export from there, and export for whatever I want the central routing
>> table to import from the protocol I'm configuring?"<- no need to
>> comment on this I guess...
>>
>> /me trying to provide constructive feedback
>
> Well, I tried, but I see the result wasn't overly constructive yet, and
> I hijacked a thread, which is bad.

Ah, somebody brought to my attention that this text can be interpreted 
like "nobody else replied to my ramblings and now I'm complaining about 
that again", which makes me even look more bad and grumpy. This is *not* 
what I meant to say. I meant to say that I was contemplating on my own 
text and found out I wasn't as constructive yet as I wanted to be.

Bah, linguistics... :-)

> I'll rephrase and put questions in separate threads, trying to provide
> input to improve documentation etc.

-- 
Hans van Kranenburg - System / Network Engineer
+31 (0)10 2760434 | hans.van.kranenburg at mendix.com | www.mendix.com