Best practices for redundant iBGP/eBGP route distribution? [bird 2.0.7]

[Ondrej Zajicek]

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 01:43:09AM +0100, Nico Schottelius wrote:
> 
> Follow up 2:
> 
> it seems that bird1.6 behaves differently to bird 2.0.7:
> 
> bird> show route all for 2a0a:e5c1:111:111:6aa6:5bc:535a:8e21
> 2a0a:e5c1:100::/40 via 2a0a:e5c0:1:8::6 on bond0.8 [router2_place6_ungleich_ch_v6 2019-12-03] * (100) [i]
>         Type: BGP unicast univ
>         BGP.origin: IGP
>         BGP.as_path:
>         BGP.next_hop: 2a0a:e5c0:2:2:0:84ff:fe41:f24d
>         BGP.local_pref: 500
> bird>
> 
> (this is from the 2nd router pair, still running bird 1.6)
> 
> Is it possible that the nexthop resolution algorithm changed in bird2 vs
> bird1?

Yes, in BIRD 1 direct mode, there was a fallback that uses IP address
of BGP peer as gateway if BGP NEXT_HOP failed to resolve.

We removed this fallback in BIRD 2.

-- 
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."