On 2014-08-20 13:30, Mickael Torres wrote:
On 2014-08-20 11:21, David Dahlberg wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 20.08.2014, 08:25 +0200 schrieb Henning Brauer:
> trying to do the same for IPv6, the set nexthop statement in the bgpd.conf
> has no effect. The cisco receives the prefixes with the non-carp IP of each
> firewall as nexthop.
that smells like a bug.
I can confirm that I've seen this behaviour also. Yet I thought the
reason would be more of the kind that I did evil things[tm]
to bgpd. And maybe stuff like "::ffff:10.0.0.1" would somehow not be
regarded as a valid next_hop address for IPv6.
Mickael, can you confirm that a route towards "2a02:d48:2f:1c::1:4" is
in your rtable 0 FIB?
-dd
Yes, the output is the same for both firewalls:
# netstat -nr -f inet6 | grep 2a02:d48:2f:1c::1:4
2a02:d48:2f:1c::1:4 00:00:5e:00:01:01 HL
0 0 - 4 lo0
#
and
# bgpctl show fib| grep 2a02:d48:2f:1c::1:0
*CN 0 2a02:d48:2f:1c::1:0/125 link#5
#
Best regards,
Mickael
Hi again,
So it seems I can have this working by adding "set nexthop no-modify" to
my neighbor block.
But I am not sure if this is actually needed or if there still is a bug
somewhere.
Best regards,
Mickael
