ospfd: fix the inconsistency between lsdb and route table #19745
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
How did you test it? |
Ok, i have updated the description section above. |
|
So, if this is easily reproducible, let's have a topotest. |
7b9d7d1 to
eb21332
Compare
eb21332 to
c98c2db
Compare
Consider ospf's summary address case: A.B.C.0/26 is summaried to A.B.C.0/24. Two lsas are originated: A.B.C.0/24, and maxaged A.B.C.63/26 with changed lsid. The neighbor received the A.B.C.0/24 lsa, then only removed the A.B.C.0/26 from lsdb. The neighbor didn't know the subsequent A.B.C.63/26 with changed lsid, then A.B.C.0/26 will wrongly remain in route table. That is to say, the neighbor did not perceive that lsid of A.B.C.0/26 had been changed. So update route table for this case. ospfv3 uses lsid in completely different way, so doesn't have this problem. Signed-off-by: anlan_cs <[email protected]>
Add one summary case to check the inconsistency between lsdb and route table. Signed-off-by: anlan_cs <[email protected]>
c98c2db to
6399f7e
Compare
Done. Thanks for your suggestion. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Consider ospf's summary address case: A.B.C.0/26 is summaried to A.B.C.0/24. Two lsas are originated: A.B.C.0/24, and maxaged A.B.C.63/26 with changed lsid. The neighbor received the A.B.C.0/24 lsa, then only removed the A.B.C.0/26 from lsdb. The neighbor didn't know the subsequent A.B.C.63/26 with changed lsid, then A.B.C.0/26 will wrongly remain in route table.
That is to say, the neighbor did not perceive that lsid of A.B.C.0/26 had been changed. So update route table for this case.
ospfv3 uses lsid in completely different way, so doesn't have this problem.
The issue can be reproduced with ospf neighbors, A and B:
On A:
On B: