Mailing List Archive

Re: OSPF passive-interface problem (fwd)
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Nick Grundy wrote:

> > On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Gilad Arnold wrote:
> as for the secondary keyword.
>
> I'm fairly new to using zebra but exactly how would i go about attaching alias ip's
> to my FreeBSD machines via zebra?
> FreeBSD doesn't create new virtual interfaces (eth0:1) like Linux does it attaches the ip
> to the interface like so
>
> rl0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
> inet 192.168.4.17 netmask 0xfffffffc broadcast 192.168.4.19
> inet6 fe80::200:8cff:fe01:222f%rl0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
> inet 192.168.4.21 netmask 0xfffffffc broadcast 192.168.4.23
> inet 192.168.4.25 netmask 0xfffffffc broadcast 192.168.4.27
> inet 192.168.4.29 netmask 0xfffffffc broadcast 192.168.4.31
> inet 192.168.4.33 netmask 0xfffffffc broadcast 192.168.4.35
> inet 192.168.4.37 netmask 0xfffffffc broadcast 192.168.4.39
> inet 192.168.4.41 netmask 0xfffffffc broadcast 192.168.4.43
> ether 00:00:8c:01:22:2f
> media: Ethernet autoselect (10baseT/UTP)
> status: active
>
> for me the label keyword is useless! (well someone will tell me it's not now :P)
>
> ~Nick


In Quagga (telnet to localhost port 2601), do this:

conf t
interface rl0
ip address 192.168.4.17/30
ip address 192.168.4.21/30 secondary
ip address 192.168.4.25/30 secondary
ip address 192.168.4.29/30 secondary
ip address 192.168.4.33/30 secondary
ip address 192.168.4.37/30 secondary
ip address 192.168.4.41/30 secondary

That will bind up all of those IP addresses on interface rl0. While it
might not CURRENTLY do anything special for "secondary" addresses, you
never know... You might move your routing platform to an operating system
that does.

Note... the ethX:Y notation in Linux is there for backwards
compatibility. It SHOULD go away sometime. IPTools will bind as many
addresses as someone likes onto ethX without the need for those silly :Y
"sub-interfaces."

Oh, one more thing. If you're running a Quagga router, I HIGHLY recommend
that you do ALL IP address configuration and routes (static and default
even) inside the Quagga interface. It makes life MUCH easier when you
don't have to remember what you've done with some silly network init
script 2 years down the road when you need to work on the router. You can
simply do a "sh running config" and get the whole picture at once.


--
---
John Fraizer | High-Security Datacenter Services |
President | Dedicated circuits 64k - 155M OC3 |
EnterZone, Inc | Virtual, Dedicated, Colocation |
http://www.enterzone.net/ | Network Consulting Services |
Re: OSPF passive-interface problem (fwd) [ In reply to ]
>
> conf t
> interface rl0
> ip address 192.168.4.17/30
> ip address 192.168.4.21/30 secondary
> ip address 192.168.4.25/30 secondary
> ip address 192.168.4.29/30 secondary
> ip address 192.168.4.33/30 secondary
> ip address 192.168.4.37/30 secondary
> ip address 192.168.4.41/30 secondary
>
> That will bind up all of those IP addresses on interface rl0. While it
> might not CURRENTLY do anything special for "secondary" addresses, you
> never know... You might move your routing platform to an operating system
> that does.

hmm, it might have been due to starting in 0.93b but if i didn't append that
secondary keyword it would overwrite the main interface IP. I've carried
the config accross to a late july 0.94 zebra-pj

>
> Note... the ethX:Y notation in Linux is there for backwards
> compatibility. It SHOULD go away sometime. IPTools will bind as many
> addresses as someone likes onto ethX without the need for those silly :Y
> "sub-interfaces."
>
Intresting. does zebra/quagga detect that you kernel lacks these options?
what version of the linux kernel is able to do non virtual interface secondary ips? (2.4.18 here). I used the label method as when ever i wrote the config file
out to the file system that is what zebrad put in the zebra.conf

> Oh, one more thing. If you're running a Quagga router, I HIGHLY recommend
> that you do ALL IP address configuration and routes (static and default
> even) inside the Quagga interface. It makes life MUCH easier when you
> don't have to remember what you've done with some silly network init
> script 2 years down the road when you need to work on the router. You can
> simply do a "sh running config" and get the whole picture at once.
>
Belive me I do. The system comes up ip-less and then zebra is launched.
Re: OSPF passive-interface problem (fwd) [ In reply to ]
Nick Grundy wrote:

> hmm, it might have been due to starting in 0.93b but if i didn't append that
> secondary keyword it would overwrite the main interface IP. I've carried
> the config accross to a late july 0.94 zebra-pj

Interesting, is your zebra configured to use rtnetlink as kernel API?
(no clue whether or not netlink sockets are used in FreeBSD)

Gilad
Re: OSPF passive-interface problem (fwd) [ In reply to ]
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Nick Grundy wrote:
> >
> > Note... the ethX:Y notation in Linux is there for backwards
> > compatibility. It SHOULD go away sometime. IPTools will bind as many
> > addresses as someone likes onto ethX without the need for those silly :Y
> > "sub-interfaces."
> >
> Intresting. does zebra/quagga detect that you kernel lacks these
> options? what version of the linux kernel is able to do non virtual
> interface secondary ips? (2.4.18 here). I used the label method as
> when ever i wrote the config file out to the file system that is what
> zebrad put in the zebra.conf

Well, there used to be (may still be) a configure option to make Zebra do
the "stupid linux tricks" thing with ethX:Y. I never used it though
because I hate that convention.

At least in 0.93b, I don't see that behavior. I don't think that it is
going to be a kernel option for the secondary/virtual interfaces. It will
simply depend on if you use the old "ifconfig" or the new "ip add" method
of configuring interfaces. (Or, if you use Quagga and just be done with
it!)

--
John Fraizer | High-Security Datacenter Services |
President | Dedicated circuits 64k - 155M OC3 |
EnterZone, Inc | Virtual, Dedicated, Colocation |
http://www.enterzone.net/ | Network Consulting Services |
Re: OSPF passive-interface problem (fwd) [ In reply to ]
from config.h
/* netlink */
/* #undef HAVE_NETLINK */

from config.h.in
/* netlink */
#undef HAVE_NETLINK

>
> Nick Grundy wrote:
>
> >this is the ./configure line i used
> >
> > $ ./configure --sysconfdir=/usr/local/etc/zebra --enable-nssa
> > --enable-tcp-zebra --disable-bgpd --disable-ripngd --disable-ripd
> > --disable-ospf6d --disable-ipv6
> >
> >and i'm not sure on netlink sockets, truthfully i've not heard of them
> >untill i started reading the quagga/zebra lists
>
> See whether HAVE_NETLINK is #defined in your config.h. (And, please let
> me know, I'm interested)
>
> Gilad
>
>
>
Re: OSPF passive-interface problem (fwd) [ In reply to ]
Nick Grundy wrote:

> from config.h
> /* netlink */
> /* #undef HAVE_NETLINK */

This probably means you don't run a netlink API against your kernel.
Hence, I don't really understand how the 'secondary' keyword makes any
difference wrt the way addresses are installed to your system.

Any clue?

Gilad
Re: OSPF passive-interface problem (fwd) [ In reply to ]
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Gilad Arnold wrote:

> (no clue whether or not netlink sockets are used in FreeBSD)

it uses {kernel,rt}_socket iirc.

> Gilad

regards,
--
Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
warning: do not ever send email to spam@dishone.st
Fortune:
"A power so great, it can only be used for Good or Evil!"
-- Firesign Theatre, "The Giant Rat of Summatra"
Re: OSPF passive-interface problem (fwd) [ In reply to ]
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Nick Grundy wrote:

> Intresting. does zebra/quagga detect that you kernel lacks these
> options? what version of the linux kernel is able to do non virtual
> interface secondary ips? (2.4.18 here).

all 2.4 i think. certainly all recent ones, including 2.4.18.

label's are deprecated.

regards,
--
Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
warning: do not ever send email to spam@dishone.st
Fortune:
Every program is a part of some other program, and rarely fits.