Honestly why both of you try to reinvent the wheel - e.g.
https://www.consul.io/discovery.html ?
Best regards,
Łukasz Jarosz
niedz., 1 gru 2019, 06:55 użytkownik Lars Ekman G <lars.g.ek...@est.tech>
napisał:
> Hi,
>
> The patch is below.
>
> Q1: huh?
> Q2: Yes we "watch" the service
> Q3: Yes, goBGP. It is simpler to adapt than BIRD, but lacks functionality.
> If BGB is all you need it may be a good option.
>
> Regards,
> L Ekman
>
> diff --git a/proto/bgp/config.Y b/proto/bgp/config.Y
> index 7279560b..fbfade8f 100644
> --- a/proto/bgp/config.Y
> +++ b/proto/bgp/config.Y
> @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ bgp_proto_start: proto_start BGP {
>
> bgp_loc_opts:
> /* empty */
> - | bgp_loc_opts PORT expr { BGP_CFG->local_port = $3; if (($3<1) ||
> ($3>65535)) cf_error("Invalid port number"); }
> + | bgp_loc_opts PORT expr { BGP_CFG->local_port = $3; if ($3>65535)
> cf_error("Invalid port number"); }
> | bgp_loc_opts AS expr { BGP_CFG->local_as = $3; }
> ;
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Stefan Jakob <tinysa...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 30, 2019 11:39 AM
> *To:* Lars Ekman G <lars.g.ek...@est.tech>
> *Cc:* bird-users@network.cz <bird-users@network.cz>
> *Subject:* Re: Option to not open the server-port (179)
>
> Hi Lars,
> Hi Bird-List,
>
> Could you share the patch for this workaround please?
>
> Guess we share the same goals?:
>
> a) I want to announce a /32 (IPv4) or /128 IPv6 of course per service.
> b) I want to run multiple services on one single maschine in (Linux)
> namespaces, f.e. via Docker
> c) I want each service to connect to the network, when it's ready for
> service by announcing it's more specific (somehow similar to a))
> d) bird/bgp shouldnt't need to run as root (which a T179 socket makes
> difficult)
>
> Q1: How do you orchestrate you services?
> Q2: Do you do any service checking and "announcement decision" based
> on the result?
>
> Q3: Did you also check exaBGP or goBGP?
>
> Anyone any good experience with the k8s CNI stuff?
>
> Rgds, SJ
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 7:37 AM Lars Ekman G <lars.g.ek...@est.tech>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have a use-case where we want to deploy multiple BIRD instances on
> the same machine. The BIRD instance would be a part of public applications
> with their own (virtual) addreesses. These BIRD instances shall announce
> the application addresses (only) but not set any local routes.
> >
> > The goal is to deploy applications independently of each other.
> >
> > A problem is that BIRD requires that a server port is opened (default
> 179). While the port is configurable the port numbers must be different for
> all applications which is hard to do (to assign each application a port is
> ... undesirable).
> >
> > Another alternative is to have a central BIRD instance and invent some
> way for applications to communicate their addresses. While this is
> certainly doable it adds an unwanted complexity, especially for testing.
> >
> > I would like an option to not open the server-port.
> >
> > As an alternative I disabled the check for setting the server port to 0
> (any). It is a tiny code change and removes the coordination problem. BIRD
> will open an ephemeral server port which is of course useless, but we can
> take the waste of ports.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Lars Ekman
> >
> >
>
