Protocol direct

[Ondrej Zajicek]

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 08:41:30AM +0100, Daniel Czerwonk wrote:
> > Miłosz Oller <mailto:milosz at sys-com.pl>
> > 22. December 2017 at 00:46
> > protocol direct {
> >     ipv4;
> >     ipv6;
> >     interface "*";
> > }
> >
> > And it doesn't announced any local prefix to upstream peers, only to
> > ibgp peer.
>
> Hi Milosz,
> 
> I had the same problem yesterday. Direct protocol did not learn routes
> either with implicit or explicit multichannel configuration. After
> splitting it in 2 protocols, it worked for me. Maybe that's a feasible
> workaround for you, too.

Hi

It works for me with multichannel config (like in the example from Miłosz
Oller above). How the problem manifests? Is there no prefix at all?
If you add 'debug all;' to direct protocol, what do you get in logs?
What do you see in 'show route protocol direct1' and 'show interfaces'?

-- 
Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo

Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santiago at crfreenet.org)
OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net)
"To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://trubka.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/attachments/20171223/5e22bdb8/attachment.asc>