On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 07:28:22PM +0200, mikma.b...@lists.m7n.se wrote:
> On 30 September 2019 01:52:22 CEST, Ondrej Zajicek
>
> > Yes. Technically it is not because the other route is also BGP, but
> > because the other route is also recursive / also has indirect next hop.
> > BIRD implements on
On 30 September 2019 01:52:22 CEST, Ondrej Zajicek
Yes. Technically it is not because the other route is also BGP, but
because the other route is also recursive / also has indirect next hop.
BIRD implements only one level of indirection.
Is this a problem? Which use cases require more levels of
Hi Ondrej,
On 30/09/2019 01:52, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 08:49:57PM +0200, Alarig Le Lay wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> It seems that bird can’t resolve the next-hop in that case. But there is
>> no issue when the next-hop is announced by OSPF.
>
> Hello
>
> Yes. Technically it is
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 08:49:57PM +0200, Alarig Le Lay wrote:
> Hello,
>
> It seems that bird can’t resolve the next-hop in that case. But there is
> no issue when the next-hop is announced by OSPF.
Hello
Yes. Technically it is not because the other route is also BGP, but
because the other rout
Hello,
It seems that bird can’t resolve the next-hop in that case. But there is
no issue when the next-hop is announced by OSPF.
bird> show route all for 45.91.127.1
Table master4:
45.91.127.0/24 unreachable [ibgp_hv02_ipv4 16:16:24.927 from
89.234.186.40] * (100/-) [i]
Type: BGP un
