Hi,
Is there any specific reason why bird (1.6.0 @linux in particular) does
not process static routes like:
route 10.101.0.0/24 via "eth1";
when eth1 has no assigned IP address (but is up & active)?
This route is completely legal but it is invisible anywhere, simply
ignored (even does not
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 04:34:26PM +0200, Baptiste Jonglez wrote:
>
> Great, thanks for the clear explanation! I was struggling with the new
> syntax, now it's clearer.
>
> It seems that the BGP part is not yet implemented?
This is true, BGP is only partially implemented and not yet commited.
On 17 Jun 2016, at 12:40, Jan Matejka wrote:
> If one of our crazy ideas comes true, we may add Lua as a possible
> language to write filters in (in several years' perspective) and maybe
> also deprecate the current, then-legacy filter language in far future.
FWIW I did some work on hacking thi
Le 17/06/2016 à 13:40, Jan Matejka a écrit :
table it; ... }
should change to something like
protocol bgp {
ipv4 { table t1; import ...; export ...; };
ipv6 { table t2; import ...; export ...; };
vpn4 { ... };
igp ipv4 table it4;
igp ipv6 table it6;
...
}
Look really good and clear syntax
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 01:40:45PM +0200, Jan Matejka wrote:
> Import and export filters should stay as they were before. The
> "channels" feature is just an internal abstraction layer between routing
> tables and protocols.
Hi
I would disagree a bit here. Channels are not just an internal
abstra
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 01:40:45PM +0200, Jan Matejka wrote:
> If one of our crazy ideas comes true, we may add Lua as a possible
> language to write filters in (in several years' perspective) and maybe
> also deprecate the current, then-legacy filter language in far future.
YES!!! that would be a
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 01:40:45PM +0200, Jan Matejka wrote:
> First of all, thank your for your question. It's good to know that the
> rework is really watched by the community.
I am interested in BGP multiprotocol support (to potentially implement a
new NLRI), and it looks like a good idea to ba
Hi!
First of all, thank your for your question. It's good to know that the
rework is really watched by the community.
> I am very curious about the new "channels" feature from the int-new
> branch.
>
> I understand it is supposed to replace import and export filters by
> connecting protocols to
Hi,
I am very curious about the new "channels" feature from the int-new
branch.
I understand it is supposed to replace import and export filters by
connecting protocols to routing tables. What is the motivation for this
change, and how does it work from a high-level perspective? Will it be
part
