BGP router address family list is not enforced in negotiation with peer
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Juniper Openstack | Status tracked in Trunk | |||||
R3.0 |
Fix Committed
|
Medium
|
Nischal Sheth | |||
R3.1 |
Fix Committed
|
Medium
|
Nischal Sheth | |||
R3.2 |
Fix Committed
|
Medium
|
Nischal Sheth | |||
Trunk |
Fix Committed
|
Medium
|
Nischal Sheth |
Bug Description
===> Let's assume a control node is configured to support all the address families:
{
"bgp-router": {
]
},
[...]
[...]
===> Then the BGP router object for a remote peering is configured with a subset of these address families:
{
"bgp-router": {
]
},
[...]
}
===> The address family list in the remote BGP router object 10.1.1.87 is not really taken into account. The AF negotiation only considers the configuration of the local control node 10.0.0.85, which supports all address families (according to the configuration at the beginning of this description). In other words, if 10.1.1.87 supports inet(6)-vpn, the BGP session between 10.0.0.85 and 10.1.1.87 will negotiate and exchange inet(6)-vpn prefixes.
===> As a result, it is not possible today to federate two clusters for L2 AFs while peering CN with the SDN gateway for L3 AFs.
summary: |
- BGP router address family list is not enforced in peer negotiation + BGP router address family list is not enforced in negotiation with peer |
tags: | added: contrail-control |
information type: | Proprietary → Public |
Review in progress for https:/ /review. opencontrail. org/28723
Submitter: Nischal Sheth (<email address hidden>)