Hi Maria, Thanks for your response.
(1) Not in the first version to be released, yet if there is enough demand, why not. What is your usecase, please? >> My use case is to exchange IPv4 prefix through BGP EVPN (2) This has quite some consequences we are avoiding by enforcing the one-level rule, thus if there is demand, we may add it in some higher version of BIRD 3 probably. The major problem is thorough testing to identify the corner cases where the multi-level resolution may start to do weird things after specifically timed colliding updates. >> Please let me know if you have any workaround to overcome this two level lookup issue. Thanks, Ramanathan On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 at 12:17, Maria Matejka <maria.mate...@nic.cz> wrote: > Hello! > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 10:49:32AM +0530, Ramanathan Selvamani wrote: > > I would like to know about the below two things in BIRD support > > 1. Do you have any plan to support BGP EVPN Route-Type 5 (IP Prefix > Route) as defined in RFC 9136 in the BIRD EVPN branch. > > Not in the first version to be released, yet if there is enough demand, > why not. What is your usecase, please? > > > 2. Do you have any plan to support two level recursive lookup to > resolve nexthop for BGP routes. I mean the below comment in > “rt_update_hostentry” function /* Recursive route should not depend on > another recursive route */ > > This has quite some consequences we are avoiding by enforcing the > one-level rule, thus if there is demand, we may add it in some higher > version of BIRD 3 probably. The major problem is thorough testing to > identify the corner cases where the multi-level resolution may start to do > weird things after specifically timed colliding updates. > > Have a nice day! > Maria > > – > Maria Matejka (she/her) | BIRD Team Leader | CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. >
