Some projects, like BSDRP, does references on their release do specific
"sub-versions" of Bird.
I'm trying to find de differences between versions 2.0.7 , 2.0.7_1 ,
2.0.7_2.
On https://gitlab.nic.cz/labs/bird/-/releases there are no releases
available.
On https://gitlab.nic.cz/labs/bird/-/commits
I was studying the concepts of multi-bird for large environments of IXPs.
And, beyond the extra complexity that it brings to the environment, one of
the weak points I saw was the fact that all the Bird instances are at the
same box(vm, container, etc...).
A friend mentioned that some tests were m
ailure.
Em ter., 19 de jan. de 2021 às 10:48, Alexander Zubkov
escreveu:
> Hi,
>
> You can use VRRP or alike protocol on L2 or dynamic routing with
> anycast on L3 for reliability. I do not see what you want in Bird.
> Could you explain more?
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 1:26 PM Doug
so can be solved somehow, a couple of
> route reflectors for example.
> I still do not understand what you want to see in Bird itself. I
> haven't run large IXPs, so I may be not aware of something and would
> be glad if you explained it in more detail.
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 a
to me and I could try to help
> you with the configuration if you wish and maybe we could even make
> some useful case of it for other bird users.
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 10:01 PM Douglas Fischer
> wrote:
> >
> > Vertical Scalability of Route-Servers on very large
reveu:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 09:17:57AM -0300, Douglas Fischer wrote:
> > I was studying the concepts of multi-bird for large environments of IXPs.
> >
> > And, beyond the extra complexity that it brings to the environment, one
> of
> > the weak points I saw was
OK
Em dom, 24 de jan de 2021 07:49, Alexander Zubkov
escreveu:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 3:24 PM Douglas Fischer
> wrote:
> >
> > The big difference is the single point of failure.
> >
> > With a host doing that redirection, We will have load balancing an
To me, It sounds like the path of better sleeping nights.
Em ter., 23 de fev. de 2021 às 07:11, Zhenlei Huang
escreveu:
> Hi,
>
> Currently Bird 2.x does not support ECMP on FreeBSD system. Thanks
> Alexander V. Chernikov's work,
> the feature ECMP route was enabled by default in FreeBSD 13 amd
This is very good news!
I know you said "This is a ball park guess", but I confess that I was a
little scared by the proportion of extra CPU usage (30/48 -> +60%).
I also know that you said that the code is still "currently not
releasable", but I'm curious to know a little more about how this
mult
sed ´s/colors/cores´
Em ter., 2 de mar. de 2021 às 12:34, Douglas Fischer <
fischerdoug...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> This is very good news!
>
> I know you said "This is a ball park guess", but I confess that I was a
> little scared by the proportion of extra CPU usa
Hello, Maria and everyone on the list...
This is Great News! I'm so happy to receive that mail!
That part about "Filter Rework" made me a bit anxious!
I don't know exactly means the part:
"we decided to preprocess the filter internal structure to another
structure which is much easier to execute"
rks internally and how it is
going to change" could look a bit more directly to that part of the code
changes?
Em seg., 15 de mar. de 2021 às 15:02, Maria Matejka
escreveu:
> Hello!
>
> On 3/15/21 6:07 PM, Douglas Fischer wrote:
> > That part about "Filter Rework" ma
It does make sense! A LOT!
It is the only way I see that is possible to use RPKI as a source of
information to validate RTBH with the available information existent now.
P.S.: I even mentioned some about that on SIDROPS
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/vbfKT9yduwAtTNQVBoc5KCRPkmM/
T
community needs to
have a single hop AS-Path.
RPKI is Origin Validation, not Path Validation.
Em ter., 30 de mar. de 2021 às 11:22, Ondrej Zajicek
escreveu:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 10:04:08AM -0300, Douglas Fischer wrote:
> > It does make sense! A LOT!
> >
> > It is the on
Hello all.
Last weeks I'm noticing the increase the increase of BGP messages on some
routers that I have access to.
Specially those connected to IXPs with a considerable number of
participants.
I Checked and the BGP process has increased a bit the use of CPU Also.
So, I suspect that Route-Servers
Could it be compared with Bird Runing one RIB per participant?
Em qua., 25 de ago. de 2021 às 11:16, Laura Smith <
n5d9xq3ti233xiyif...@protonmail.ch> escreveu:
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>
> On Tuesday, August 24th, 2021 at 8:03 PM, Chris Malayter <
> must...@terahertz.net> wrote:
>
> >
Hello.
On first seconds looking to the code, I imagined that it could do Bird a
bit more friendly to Docker scenarios.
Does it make any sense?
Em dom., 5 de set. de 2021 às 22:20, Ondrej Zajicek
escreveu:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 05:08:09PM -0400, Cody Doucette wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was ab
I'm not sure if that is the motivation on Bird...
But I think it could be related the fact that the protocolo that is used to
transport BGP Sessions does not defines protocols of the routes that are
being exchanged.
You cloud use a BGP session in v6 to exchange v6 routes, v4 routes or even
both.
T
I guess you are looking for a thing "all config in a single place" like
hardware-based routers...
Is not Linux, but maybe BSD Router Project could near what you are looking
for.
https://bsdrp.net/
It supports Bird also, but the Bird configs will need to be on other files.
Em qua., 22 de set. d
Hey Maria and everyone else.
Any updates on this multithreading mission?
Could we hope for something in this quarter?
Thanks in advance!
Em sex., 26 de nov. de 2021 às 14:19, Maria Matejka
escreveu:
> Hello!
>
> If you are brave, you can try out the alderney branch. I suppose there
> are stil
Another silly question:
Sark, Alderney... Islands? Why?
Em qua., 26 de jan. de 2022 às 18:09, Douglas Fischer <
fischerdoug...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> Hey Maria and everyone else.
>
> Any updates on this multithreading mission?
>
> Could we hope for something in this q
finish them and push them for
> publishing.
>
> There will be also probably a long pause in multithreaded development
> after Pipe+RPKI+BGP to allow for stabilizing these and merging with the
> 2.0.x branch. There is also a long backlog of feature requests to be
> implemented before o
Passing by here to drop another ping on the MRAI - Minimum Route
Advertisement Interval in the BIRD, and also on the RFD -
Route-Flap-Dampening.
Em qui., 8 de jul. de 2021 às 17:18, Douglas Fischer <
fischerdoug...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> Hello all.
>
> Last weeks I'm notic
o hearing suggestions.
Em seg., 14 de fev. de 2022 às 10:48, Douglas Fischer <
fischerdoug...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> Passing by here to drop another ping on the MRAI - Minimum Route
> Advertisement Interval in the BIRD, and also on the RFD -
> Route-Flap-Dampening.
>
> Em qui.,
Bringing back to the table this EXCELLENT job made by Justin.
https://elegantnetwork.github.io/posts/BGP-commercial-stacks/
In this chapter he also tested Junos cRPD and Rusty BGP.
And two things really caught my attention:
- Firstly, RustyBGP's exceptional performance.
- But what caught my a
I know that it is not the focus of your question, and also is not the focus
on this mail list, but...
To that kind of automation, the best BGP engine you will find is ExaBGP. It
is not focuses in been in compliance with all the concepts of a routing
system itself. It's focus is exactly automations
Wow... I'm a bit surprised knowing that.
One scenario that I used in some customers is to used the IGP metric to
populate the BGP MED. But I did it on Juniper, Huawei, and Cisco.
I never needed it on Bird.
By what you described, I presume.
If I can't test that IGP attribute, probably I also won't
e original-
> De: Bird-users En nombre de Alarig Le Lay
> Enviado el: jueves, 24 de marzo de 2022 13:43
> Para: bird-users@network.cz
> Asunto: Re: Filter based on BGP protocol status ...
>
> On Thu 24 Mar 2022 07:43:03 GMT, Douglas Fischer wrote:
> > I know that it is n
I need to agree with Toke!
"having Bird behave differently on different archs is bound to be
incredibly confusing..."
And, on the other hand, what would be the downside of having everything in
64?
Using a little more memory than might be the minimum usable?
This kind of care I see being taken for
> Is there even any userbase running bird on embedded hardware (that might
>> be adversely affected)?
>>
>> Dn42 comes to mind. Perhaps? But realistically we aren't talking about
>> much of an increase surely?
>>
>> Other than that I like 64bit only.
&g
The question raised by colleague Irene reminded me of a topic that may or
may not be the focus of BIRD's development.
I imagine that the biggest supporters of SMP/Multi-Core/Thread-Safe
evolution on BIRD are Operators of Route-Servers of large IXPs, and
operators of large-scale Route-Reflectors.
Hello all!
Any news from the front of version 3?
Em qua., 2 de mar. de 2022 às 06:58, Ondrej Filip
escreveu:
> Dear BURD users,
>
> We have something special for you today. We're releasing a
> multi-threaded BIRD version 3.0-alpha0 for public testing. Protocols
> BGP, RPKI and Pipe got their ow
escreveu:
> Hello!
>
> On 5/26/22 3:48 PM, Douglas Fischer wrote:
> > Hello all!
> >
> > Any news from the front of version 3?
>
> TL;DR: We're working on it, there is a lot of heavy lifting done and
> another lot of heavy lifting still to be done.
>
&g
tejka
escreveu:
> Hello!
>
> On 5/26/22 3:48 PM, Douglas Fischer wrote:
> > Hello all!
> >
> > Any news from the front of version 3?
>
> TL;DR: We're working on it, there is a lot of heavy lifting done and
> another lot of heavy lifting still to be done.
&
That made me curious...
"Note: REALLY DONT store the validation state inside a bgp_community or
bgp_large_community or bgp_ext_community variables. It can cause CPU &
memory overload resulting in convergence performance issues."
Why that ( CPU & memory overload ) would happen?
Why is that differe
hat I do... Ex.:
- Prefix Bogons
- ASN Bogons
- Tier 1 Free
- RPKI
Em seg., 30 de mai. de 2022 às 09:15, Dan Mahoney
escreveu:
>
>
>
>
> > On May 30, 2022, at 8:04 AM, Douglas Fischer
> wrote:
> >
> > That made me curious...
> >
> > &
Any chance we'll see 2.0.10 or 3.0-alpha1 soon?
Em qua., 8 de jun. de 2022 às 11:18, Maria Matějka
escreveu:
>
>
> Hello!
>
> As there are some merges done, here is a short update.
>
> >3G. the current route attribute implementation is a two-layer mess
> originating in version 1 where everything
be reasonable to lock the timers of BGP Session in 60/180.
Em sex., 1 de abr. de 2022 às 13:41, Ondrej Zajicek
escreveu:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 08:44:50AM -0300, Douglas Fischer wrote:
> > The question raised by colleague Irene reminded me of a topic that may or
> > may not be
I know it sounds stupid was it here but I'm feeling a bit dumb and
impatient with this.
On and environment with several(1000+) peers, I need to collect on a very
simples and with less performance impact of the following information each
5-to-5 ou 1-to-1 minute:
- Peer status
- Number of Routes
as a workshop on "BFD at IXes" at the recent Euro-IX Forum in
> Tampere.
>
> These are the parameters the participants agreed upon
>
> * Interval: 500ms - 1500ms
> * Multiplier: 3 or 5
> * Passive: on
> * Idle_tx: 3x Interval
> * Auth: none
>
>
I remember talking a little bit about something similar in the past here on
the list.
Something I had suggested, which I already use to a certain extent, is to
separate the settings of different snippets into different files, with
includes.
For example, everything that is common is in a main file
This thread reminded me of something I saw these days about using BGP
unnumbered in Hypervisors for EVPN/VXLAN.
I confess that I was completely stunned to see how beautiful it was!
- The 4 ports of each Server became a CLOS L3 topology.
- The complexities of Multichassis-LAG no longer exist.
- Th
Trying to answer one of your questions:
Yes, BIRD is opensource.
I'm biased, but in my humble opinion, BIRD is the most versatile BGP daemon
out there for Route-Server IXP and Route-Reflector IP scenarios.
Regarding your other statements and questions for your IXP scenario, I will
try to address
I've been following the list for some time now, and this topic of punctual
changes in birdc conf with or without the need for a complete reload is
always coming back, and it's always a complex topic...
>From simple things like adding a route, updating a prefix-list...
Even with things like adding
Thanks a lot for the explanations!
Put like that, things make more sense.
On restructuring the configuration methodology.
Here in my head, separating things and being able to reload only those
small separate things makes a lot of sense.
But it's become clear that clearing the way for SMP will inev
I was looking for a live stream of @Maria Matejka
presentation about Bird
3 on 38º Euro-IX.
But I was not able to find anyone.
This event was transmitted?
https://www.euro-ix.net/en/events/fora/38th-euro-ix-forum/#:~:text=BIRD%20in%20muiltiple%20threads
Em sex., 21 de abr. de 2023 às 04:24, Ondr
I Fell the same in here...
Thank you all for your effort!
And thank you also for cutting Bird 1.
It will consolidate to Bird users where should be the focus.
P.S.: Cof-cof, DE-CIX black-hole, cof-cof.
Em ter., 25 de abr. de 2023 às 07:47, Nico Schottelius via Bird-users <
bird-users@network.cz>
For the guys who master the Multi-Bird concept...
It would be nice if there was a public Multi-Bird deployment guide.
It would be an incentive for other colleagues to abandon the legacy version.
If I can help with this guide, I make myself available.
Em ter., 25 de abr. de 2023 às 08:32, Cyberti
This conversation piqued my curiosity...
P.S.: It's almost a fork on the topic, but maybe it could be a productive
conversation. I apologize in advance if I mess up.
Just for context:
I'm not a programmer!
I have some references of the concepts, but almost no practice in it.
How does Bird load t
Hello Benoit!
>From what you described, I imagine that there may be a confusion between
redundancy and load distribution.
You mentioned having a route-reflector per pop.
This is load distribution. Each such route-reflector will process route
exchanges with local peers.
And that is indeed a good t
d a way to fix possible conflicts by ensureing the backup has a lower
> pref. Are there any other consideration or patterns I could use?
>
>
> Benoît
>
> --- Original Message ---
> On Thursday, June 15th, 2023 at 22:24, Douglas Fischer <
> fischerdoug...@gma
>From what I could see from your questions, the issues you have been facing
are more related to the good use of IGP (eg OSPF, ISIS) and redistribution
of routes through BGP than with the use or not of route-reflector.
If you don't have an IGP "to call your own", something you REALLY trust,
that'
This reminds me of a meme...
https://img-comment-fun.9cache.com/media/ay9BKnV/aWlGMBgm_700w_0.jpg
Em qua., 26 de jul. de 2023 às 20:54, Ondrej Zajicek
escreveu:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 08:25:24PM +0800, Brandon Zhi wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I was doing research about selecting the best route
Brazil? 😥😫🙏
What about the biggest case of BIRD in the World?
https://nic.br/semanainfrabr/
Em ter., 26 de set. de 2023 às 06:02, Maria Matejka via Bird-users <
bird-users@network.cz> escreveu:
> Dear BIRD Users,
>
> I'd like to let you know that we're planning to visit several meetings
> before
It makes a lot sense!
On a scenario of an Off-Path RR, aigp works perfectly.
But... You are probably using this to ebgp, right?
Why not set med as aigp, and then test med?
Em seg., 9 de out. de 2023 às 15:34, Brandon Zhi
escreveu:
> Hi all,
>
> I plan to use bgp_aigp instead of bgp_med to find
"also subscribing to various notifications."
Are we talking about gRPC?
If no, maybe some external tool running in same host of bird could use this
"machine-friendly interface"
to get it from bird and supply those data as gRPC?
gNMI is on the table in some way?
--
Douglas Fernando Fischer
Engº d
te easy to do it though; regarding telemetry, it should
> work well but i would not expect much from such a connection for
> controlling though – we are keeping our model of daemon only reading
> config, not writing it
>
> Maria
>
> On 2023-12-14 13:19, Douglas Fischer wrote:
&g
That is almost the same methodology I used in other engines(RPL and XPL).
But, after having some issues on performance of control plane, I needed to
change a bit...
Splitting the IFs of v4 and v6, and then inside that IF testing for the
Prefix-list.
Doing that recursion on IFs, reduced a bit the im
I'm just guessing here...
But it looks like some CNI for Kubernetes with some adapted way of renaming
the IFs.
Em qua., 14 de fev. de 2024 às 13:11,
escreveu:
> 👋
>
> Which platform uses backslash in the interface name?
>
> Have you tried to rename the interface or add an interface alias? (usin
To me, the better part is to imagine that IPv6 only Link-Layer(on IXPs and
Transit providers) will make PMTUD better working.
Em ter., 23 de abr. de 2024 11:57, Ondrej Zajicek via Bird-users <
bird-users@network.cz> escreveu:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 02:29:44PM -0500, Jay Hanke via Bird-users wr
I'm not a programmer, and I know almost nothing about it...
But reading this thread, I remembered this draft about BGP-over-QUIC.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-retana-idr-bgp-quic/
I'm not sure what I'm going to say, but I have the impression that the
session closure control method that
Unfortunately, this number of 100 BGP communities has no basis, at least
not yet, in the RFC.
It is just a recommendation (a very healthy one, by the way) from the NLNOG
team.
As far as I remember, neither the maximum mask limit of /24 for IPv4 nor
/48 for IPv6 in a BGP session are defined in RFC
Does anyone have some news from Calico guys about updating Bird to 2.X
version?
Em ter., 26 de dez. de 2023 às 08:46, Maria Matejka via Bird-users <
bird-users@network.cz> escreveu:
> Hello!
>
> Thank you for confirming that Calico still runs BIRD 1.6… and also it's
> nice to know that it's not o
out another alpha in a month or so, with a message like "now we
> consider this stable, please check".
>
> Is this info what you were looking for?
>
> Maria
>
>
> On 22 October 2024 10:32:17 GMT-04:00, Douglas Fischer <
> fischerdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
&g
Hello everyone!
I've been reading a lot of references to Bird 3 over the last few days.
And that made me want to ask if there's any news about Bird 3.
Anything you can share?
Any test scenarios that are exciting?
Em qui., 18 de abr. de 2024 às 12:10, Maria Matejka via Bird-users <
bird-users@ne
lots of progress.
https://gitlab.nic.cz/labs/bird/-/tags/v3.0.0
Thank you very much!
P.S.: Just a little joke...
A big thank you to the developers involved, especially Maria and Ondrej.
Em ter., 22 de out. de 2024 às 20:58, Douglas Fischer <
fischerdoug...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> Yep!
&
ISIS +1
Em sex., 24 de jan. de 2025, 15:49, Pim van Pelt via Bird-users <
bird-users@network.cz> escreveu:
> Hoi
>
> It is not possible because RFC5838 requires an IPv4 address in the IPv6
> Link LSA. You cannot do IPv4 unnumbered using link-local because of this
> requirement.
>
> Groet
> Pim
>
RC?
Em sáb., 11 de jan. de 2025 às 11:51, Ondrej Filip
escreveu:
> Dear BIRD Users,
> let use share with you another announcement today, we are releasing
> version 3.0.1 of BIRD. We fixed quite some bugs there, as you could
> already have seen in the list.
>
> Most notably, we fixed crashes in d
Maybe I'm getting confused...
But in other engines I basically use MED as an inheritance from igp_metric.
Combine that with cumulative med, and that's all I've needed to get by so
far.
I honestly don't remember ever looking at igp_metric as something other
than MED.
But maybe that's an overly sim
Sorry, I don't mean to be rude and hijack the thread...
But I think the best place to ask this is in this thread.
Is MRAI[1] on the Roadmap?
By the way, is there a backlog or roadmap bird team could publicly share?
[1] https://trubka.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/2020-April/014431.html
Em ter
uuuhhh... 1.6?
This version has not been receiving updates for quite some time.
Definitely more than 5 years ago. And even before that, for a few years
version 1.6 was only receiving fixes.
I suggest you consider migrating to the current version of Bird2, which if
I'm not mistaken is 2.16.1
Em q
This is great news!
Thanks to everyone involved.
I'm still waiting for the funny stories about this refactoring from v2 to
v3...
And I have a suggestion!
A sort of comparison table of functionalities and features between the
versions.
I believe that I and perhaps some of the other colleagues he
my information is useful as
> well!
>
> Happy routing!
> Jana
>
> Jana Babovakova (she/her) | BIRD Tech Support | CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o.
>
>
>
> On 16. 05. 25 14:04, Douglas Fischer wrote:
>
> This is great news!
> Thanks to everyone involved.
>
> I'm
I don't know much...
But I imagined a solution along the lines you mentioned, Erin Shepherd.
What I thought of is actually a step backwards, because from what I know
all IXPs have tried to avoid Multi-RIB.
But I imagined a Multi-RIB where the peer does not impose RFC9234 on the
participant peers i
should be able to observe
> those routes there.
>
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 1:41 PM Douglas Fischer
> wrote:
>
>> I don't know much...
>> But I imagined a solution along the lines you mentioned, Erin Shepherd.
>>
>> What I thought of is actually a step backw
IMHO, I believe that the examples should consider v4 and v6.
But there is something more important than that!
The examples should be made so that the routing policies apply
simultaneously to both Address-Families.
I honestly feel disgusted when I have to operate a routing engine that does
not all
76 matches
Mail list logo
