You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I tried to set up an OSPF+BGP lab with CL 5.0.1/NVUE (topology `tests/tests/integration/bgp/default-af/topology.yml') and OSPF wouldn't work -- the loopback interface was not in the OSPF process because NVUE ospf network statement doesn't make it into FRR.
!
interface swp1
ip ospf area 0.0.0.0
ip ospf network point-to-point
!
router ospf
ospf router-id 10.0.0.1
Please note theres no loopback interface in FRR config, and no OSPF network statement. Interestingly, the IP address on the Linux loopback interface is set correctly.
I tried to migrate to 5.2.0, no change. Looks like CL 5.x is broken, and I don't have the willpower to argue with whoever should fix this. How about you @petercrocker?
I would suggest that we put CL 5.x on hold, document its brokenness in caveats, and wait for them to fix stuff. Alternatively, we could document how to run CL 5.x as CL 4.x (hoping all it takes is changing the Vagrant box). Any other ideas?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Found what the problem might be - FRR does not allow a combo of "network area" router commands and "ip ospf area" interface commands and reports an error (more likely just a chatty comment to STDOUT), which NVUE cheerfully ignores.
We might have to restructure the whole thing to use network statements. It sucks.
I tried to set up an OSPF+BGP lab with CL 5.0.1/NVUE (topology `tests/tests/integration/bgp/default-af/topology.yml') and OSPF wouldn't work -- the loopback interface was not in the OSPF process because NVUE ospf network statement doesn't make it into FRR.
nv config show reports:
FRR config:
Please note theres no loopback interface in FRR config, and no OSPF network statement. Interestingly, the IP address on the Linux loopback interface is set correctly.
I tried to migrate to 5.2.0, no change. Looks like CL 5.x is broken, and I don't have the willpower to argue with whoever should fix this. How about you @petercrocker?
I would suggest that we put CL 5.x on hold, document its brokenness in caveats, and wait for them to fix stuff. Alternatively, we could document how to run CL 5.x as CL 4.x (hoping all it takes is changing the Vagrant box). Any other ideas?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: