On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 01:57:56AM +, Mohammad Banikazemi wrote:
>Hi, I just came across the following exchange on the BIRD mailing list and
>wanted to verify if the suggested solution is already available in BIRD.
>In particular,
Hi
No, it is not. But thanks for reminding it to m
Hi, I just came across the following exchange on the BIRD mailing list and wanted to verify if the suggested solution is already available in BIRD. In particular,
>> it seems like simplest approach is just to allow setting>> 'onlink' flag and iface from BGP import filter, like:
>> _onlink_ = true
On 09/29/2016 12:04 AM, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 05:29:01PM +0200, 'Gustavo Ponza' wrote:
Hi Ondrej,
Using BGP-based routing in NBMA tunnels is an interesting approach. We
definitely should support this. But i would avoid things like 'krt_tunnel'
attribute until we have su
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 05:29:01PM +0200, 'Gustavo Ponza' wrote:
> Hi Ondrej,
>
> >Using BGP-based routing in NBMA tunnels is an interesting approach. We
> >definitely should support this. But i would avoid things like 'krt_tunnel'
> >attribute until we have support for lightweight tunnels using R
Hi Ondrej,
Using BGP-based routing in NBMA tunnels is an interesting approach. We
definitely should support this. But i would avoid things like 'krt_tunnel'
attribute until we have support for lightweight tunnels using RTA_ENCAP.
For IPIP tunnels, it seems like simplest approach is just to allo
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 02:54:26PM +0200, Christian Tacke wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have followed this only a little...
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 14:24:32 +0200, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> [...]
> > For IPIP tunnels, it seems like simplest approach is just to allow setting
> > 'onlink' flag and ifa
Hi,
I have followed this only a little...
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 14:24:32 +0200, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
[...]
> For IPIP tunnels, it seems like simplest approach is just to allow setting
> 'onlink' flag and iface from BGP import filter, like:
>
> onlink = true;
> iface = "tunl0";
[...]
Hmm, w
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 03:09:52PM +, Neil Jerram wrote:
> Hi BIRD users!
>
> Attached are 3 patches that my team has been using for routing through
> IP-in-IP tunnels, rebased on 1.6.1. I'd like to explain why we find them
> useful, and start a conversation about whether they or something li
Hi, and thanks for your answer!
Yes, we can certainly use that approach instead. In some of our testing we
use L2TP to create tunnels as you suggest, and then run BIRD through those
tunnels. This approach doesn't require any BIRD modification.
However, the big advantage of the IP-in-IP approach
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 03:09:52PM +, Neil Jerram wrote:
> Attached are 3 patches that my team has been using for routing through
> IP-in-IP tunnels, rebased on 1.6.1. I'd like to explain why we find them
> useful, and start a conversation about whether they or something like them
> could
And here are the patches :-)
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:09 PM Neil Jerram wrote:
> Hi BIRD users!
>
> Attached are 3 patches that my team has been using for routing through
> IP-in-IP tunnels, rebased on 1.6.1. I'd like to explain why we find them
> useful, and start a conversation about whether
Hi BIRD users!
Attached are 3 patches that my team has been using for routing through
IP-in-IP tunnels, rebased on 1.6.1. I'd like to explain why we find them
useful, and start a conversation about whether they or something like them
could be upstreamed (or perhaps if there's some better way of a
12 matches
Mail list logo
