From rodrigo at bolsistas.pop-rn.rnp.br Fri Dec 1 03:54:06 2006 From: rodrigo at bolsistas.pop-rn.rnp.br (rodrigo at bolsistas.pop-rn.rnp.br) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:54:06 -0200 (BRST) Subject: [Xorp-users] configuring "register_vif" at IPv6 Message-ID: <1206.200.137.0.61.1164974046.squirrel@bolsistas.pop-rn.rnp.br> Hi, I'm configuring an ambient to test PIM-SM6 vunerabilities on Xorp. When I try to commit the register_vif configuration on mfea6 or pimsm6, xorp shows me an error: "102 Command failed Cannot enable vif register_vif: no such vif [edit]" What's that? I'm using Xorp v1.3 running on FreeBSD 6.0. Thanks, Rodrigo Santiago Bolsista (Seguran?a Multicast-IPv6) PoP-RN/RNP From pavlin at icir.org Fri Dec 1 09:50:45 2006 From: pavlin at icir.org (Pavlin Radoslavov) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:50:45 -0800 Subject: [Xorp-users] configuring "register_vif" at IPv6 In-Reply-To: Message from rodrigo@bolsistas.pop-rn.rnp.br of "Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:54:06 -0200." <1206.200.137.0.61.1164974046.squirrel@bolsistas.pop-rn.rnp.br> Message-ID: <200612011750.kB1HojAh014452@possum.icir.org> > I'm configuring an ambient to test PIM-SM6 vunerabilities on Xorp. > When I try to commit the register_vif configuration on mfea6 or pimsm6, > xorp shows me an error: > > "102 Command failed Cannot enable vif register_vif: no such vif [edit]" > > What's that? > > I'm using Xorp v1.3 running on FreeBSD 6.0. I think I have seen this error, and in my case the problem was that IPv6 wasn't enabled. Hence, could you confirm that you have IPv6 enabled on your system. E.g., in your /etc/rc.conf you should have: ipv6_enable="YES" I believe IPv6 is not enabled by default on FreeBSD. Pavlin > Thanks, > > Rodrigo Santiago > Bolsista (Seguran?a Multicast-IPv6) PoP-RN/RNP > > _______________________________________________ > Xorp-users mailing list > Xorp-users at xorp.org > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users From sevinchess at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 20:35:31 2006 From: sevinchess at yahoo.com (Soner Sevinç) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 20:35:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Xorp-users] peer-port & local-port in BGP Message-ID: <20061202043531.75079.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, Does anybody know whether there is a problem with using peer-port and local-port other than 179 in BGP peerings. I have loaded a configuration with port numbers, and successfully commited: 1st peer: peer-port : 48888 local-port : 50000 But, it seems that port numbers are not changed; they are seen as 179 still, when I run "show bgp peers". Thank you. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com From vikram.dhir at gmail.com Sun Dec 3 23:26:42 2006 From: vikram.dhir at gmail.com (Vikram) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 02:26:42 -0500 Subject: [Xorp-users] Cant get xorp to modify kernel routes Message-ID: <5ebdd4460612032326w207aa5b8xb68bd710388549fb@mail.gmail.com> hi, I configured xorp to get the 2 interfaces of my PC up and running. Then I tried to configure certain static routes. The routes dont show up in the kernel routing table. I am using minimum configuration ie I just configured the interfaces only. what else do I need to do? Also tell me whats the minimum configuration required to use xorp to modify and configure static routes on my linux system. vpd From mhorn at vyatta.com Mon Dec 4 07:05:54 2006 From: mhorn at vyatta.com (Mike Horn) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 08:05:54 -0700 Subject: [Xorp-users] Cant get xorp to modify kernel routes In-Reply-To: <5ebdd4460612032326w207aa5b8xb68bd710388549fb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <093c01c717b5$b22950c0$0f02a8c0@caddisconsulting.com> Hi Vikram, Can you send a copy of your configuration? Are both the interfaces active (i.e. link state up)? You shouldn't need anything else to get a static route to work. -mike -----Original Message----- From: xorp-users-bounces at xorp.org [mailto:xorp-users-bounces at xorp.org] On Behalf Of Vikram Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 12:27 AM To: xorp-users at xorp.org Subject: [Xorp-users] Cant get xorp to modify kernel routes hi, I configured xorp to get the 2 interfaces of my PC up and running. Then I tried to configure certain static routes. The routes dont show up in the kernel routing table. I am using minimum configuration ie I just configured the interfaces only. what else do I need to do? Also tell me whats the minimum configuration required to use xorp to modify and configure static routes on my linux system. vpd _______________________________________________ Xorp-users mailing list Xorp-users at xorp.org http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users From vikram.dhir at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 07:41:44 2006 From: vikram.dhir at gmail.com (Vikram) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 21:11:44 +0530 Subject: [Xorp-users] Cant get xorp to modify kernel routes In-Reply-To: <093c01c717b5$b22950c0$0f02a8c0@caddisconsulting.com> References: <5ebdd4460612032326w207aa5b8xb68bd710388549fb@mail.gmail.com> <093c01c717b5$b22950c0$0f02a8c0@caddisconsulting.com> Message-ID: <5ebdd4460612040741i5518a509o3480414d974cb3ec@mail.gmail.com> Both the interfaces are active. the configuration contains the basic defination of both the interfaces. I installed xorp, am running the rtrmgr as root and ran the xorpsh with a normal user account which is a member of the xorp group. I then defined the routes on the CLI but when I commit the changes, they dont reflect in the kernel routing table ie when I enter the command "route -n". What else could be the issue? On 12/4/06, Mike Horn wrote: > > Hi Vikram, > > Can you send a copy of your configuration? Are both the interfaces active > (i.e. link state up)? You shouldn't need anything else to get a static > route to work. > > -mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: xorp-users-bounces at xorp.org [mailto:xorp-users-bounces at xorp.org] On > Behalf Of Vikram > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 12:27 AM > To: xorp-users at xorp.org > Subject: [Xorp-users] Cant get xorp to modify kernel routes > > hi, > > I configured xorp to get the 2 interfaces of my PC up and running. > Then I tried to configure certain static routes. The routes dont show up > in > the kernel routing table. I am using minimum configuration ie I just > configured the interfaces only. what else do I need to do? Also tell me > whats the minimum configuration required to use xorp to modify and > configure > static routes on my linux system. > > vpd > > _______________________________________________ > Xorp-users mailing list > Xorp-users at xorp.org > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/pipermail/xorp-users/attachments/20061204/063a84a9/attachment.html From pavlin at icir.org Mon Dec 4 11:46:46 2006 From: pavlin at icir.org (Pavlin Radoslavov) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:46:46 -0800 Subject: [Xorp-users] Cant get xorp to modify kernel routes In-Reply-To: Message from Vikram of "Mon, 04 Dec 2006 21:11:44 +0530." <5ebdd4460612040741i5518a509o3480414d974cb3ec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200612041946.kB4JkkFJ084316@possum.icir.org> > Both the interfaces are active. the configuration contains the basic > defination of both the interfaces. I installed xorp, am running the rtrmgr > as root and ran the xorpsh with a normal user account which is a member of > the xorp group. I then defined the routes on the CLI but when I commit the > changes, they dont reflect in the kernel routing table ie when I enter the > command "route -n". What else could be the issue? Nothing obvious comes to mind, so please send the exact XORP configuration. Also, please verify that the static routes have reached RIB by using the following xorpsh commands: show route table ipv4 unicast static show route table ipv4 unicast final Regards, Pavlin > On 12/4/06, Mike Horn wrote: > > > > Hi Vikram, > > > > Can you send a copy of your configuration? Are both the interfaces active > > (i.e. link state up)? You shouldn't need anything else to get a static > > route to work. > > > > -mike > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xorp-users-bounces at xorp.org [mailto:xorp-users-bounces at xorp.org] On > > Behalf Of Vikram > > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 12:27 AM > > To: xorp-users at xorp.org > > Subject: [Xorp-users] Cant get xorp to modify kernel routes > > > > hi, > > > > I configured xorp to get the 2 interfaces of my PC up and running. > > Then I tried to configure certain static routes. The routes dont show up > > in > > the kernel routing table. I am using minimum configuration ie I just > > configured the interfaces only. what else do I need to do? Also tell me > > whats the minimum configuration required to use xorp to modify and > > configure > > static routes on my linux system. > > > > vpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Xorp-users mailing list > > Xorp-users at xorp.org > > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xorp-users mailing list > Xorp-users at xorp.org > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users From pavlin at icir.org Mon Dec 4 12:41:31 2006 From: pavlin at icir.org (Pavlin Radoslavov) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 12:41:31 -0800 Subject: [Xorp-users] [Xorp-hackers] Policy network4 operator In-Reply-To: Message from Pavlin Radoslavov of "Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:42:24 PST." <200611212042.kALKgOGF024918@possum.icir.org> Message-ID: <200612042041.kB4KfViO085669@possum.icir.org> For the record... Thanks to Marko Zec now the following keywords are supported inside the policy configuration when comparing IPv4 or IPv6 network prefixes: exact, longer, orlonger, shorter, orshorter, not. For example: "network4 exact 10.0.0.0/8" SAME AS "network4 == 10.0.0.0/8" "network4 longer 10.0.0.0/8" SAME AS "network4 < 10.0.0.0/8" "network4 orlonger 10.0.0.0/8" SAME AS "network4 <= 10.0.0.0/8" "network4 shorter 10.0.0.0/8" SAME AS "network4 > 10.0.0.0/8" "network4 orshorter 10.0.0.0/8" SAME AS "network4 >= 10.0.0.0/8" "network4 not 10.0.0.0/8" SAME AS "network4 != 10.0.0.0/8" The original operators are supported as well. Pavlin From atanu at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU Mon Dec 4 15:26:13 2006 From: atanu at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (Atanu Ghosh) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:26:13 -0800 Subject: [Xorp-users] peer-port & local-port in BGP In-Reply-To: Message from Soner "Sevinç" of "Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:35:31 PST." <20061202043531.75079.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <89242.1165274773@tigger.icir.org> Hi, The setting of the peer-port and local-port currently have no effect. It is possible to enable them but then after initial configuration it would not be possible to change any of the parameters associated with a peer. Atanu. >>>>> "Soner" == Soner <"Sevin?" > writes: Soner> Hi, Does anybody know whether there is a problem with using Soner> peer-port and local-port other than 179 in BGP peerings. I Soner> have loaded a configuration with port numbers, and Soner> successfully commited: Soner> 1st peer: Soner> peer-port : 48888 local-port : 50000 Soner> But, it seems that port numbers are not changed; they are Soner> seen as 179 still, when I run "show bgp peers". Soner> Thank you. Soner> ____________________________________________________________________________________ Soner> Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Soner> Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com Soner> _______________________________________________ Xorp-users Soner> mailing list Xorp-users at xorp.org Soner> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users From sevinchess at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 20:24:26 2006 From: sevinchess at yahoo.com (Soner Sevinç) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 20:24:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Xorp-users] peer-port & local-port in BGP Message-ID: <20061205042426.97983.qmail@web60025.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, Thanks very much for reply. In fact once I set up the routers, I will not need to change the port numbers later on. So, enabling different port numbers can be helpful in my situation. How can I enable them? Thank you, Soner ----- Original Message ----- From: "Atanu Ghosh" To: "Soner Sevin?" Cc: Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 6:26 PM Subject: Re: [Xorp-users] peer-port & local-port in BGP > Hi, > > The setting of the peer-port and local-port currently have no effect. It > is possible to enable them but then after initial configuration it would > not be possible to change any of the parameters associated with a peer. > > Atanu. > >>>>>> "Soner" == Soner <"Sevin?" > writes: > > Soner> Hi, Does anybody know whether there is a problem with using > Soner> peer-port and local-port other than 179 in BGP peerings. I > Soner> have loaded a configuration with port numbers, and > Soner> successfully commited: > > Soner> 1st peer: > > Soner> peer-port : 48888 local-port : 50000 > > Soner> But, it seems that port numbers are not changed; they are > Soner> seen as 179 still, when I run "show bgp peers". > > Soner> Thank you. > > > > Soner> > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Soner> Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! > Soner> Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com > > Soner> _______________________________________________ Xorp-users > Soner> mailing list Xorp-users at xorp.org > Soner> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com From vikram.dhir at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 21:29:50 2006 From: vikram.dhir at gmail.com (Vikram) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 00:29:50 -0500 Subject: [Xorp-users] Cant get xorp to modify kernel routes In-Reply-To: <200612041946.kB4JkkFJ084316@possum.icir.org> References: <5ebdd4460612040741i5518a509o3480414d974cb3ec@mail.gmail.com> <200612041946.kB4JkkFJ084316@possum.icir.org> Message-ID: <5ebdd4460612042129j61c4d51cm456704ab4841441@mail.gmail.com> My configuration file looks like this:- /*XORP Configuration File, v1.0*/ protocols { static { disable: false route 16.25.0.0/16 { next-hop: 0.0.0.0 metric: 1 } } } interfaces { restore-original-config-on-shutdown: false interface eth0 { disable: false discard: false description: "eth0" vif eth0 { disable: false address 10.20.50.150 { prefix-length: 16 broadcast: 10.20.255.255 disable: false } } } interface eth1 { disable: false discard: false description: "eth1" vif eth1 { disable: false address 192.168.0.10 { prefix-length: 24 broadcast: 192.168.0.255 disable: false } } } } -------------- I checked up in xorpsh and the routes r not showing up in the RIB. What do u think is the problem??? vpd On 12/4/06, Pavlin Radoslavov wrote: > > Both the interfaces are active. the configuration contains the basic > > defination of both the interfaces. I installed xorp, am running the rtrmgr > > as root and ran the xorpsh with a normal user account which is a member of > > the xorp group. I then defined the routes on the CLI but when I commit the > > changes, they dont reflect in the kernel routing table ie when I enter the > > command "route -n". What else could be the issue? > > Nothing obvious comes to mind, so please send the exact XORP > configuration. > > Also, please verify that the static routes have reached RIB by using > the following xorpsh commands: > > show route table ipv4 unicast static > show route table ipv4 unicast final > > Regards, > Pavlin > > > On 12/4/06, Mike Horn wrote: > > > > > > Hi Vikram, > > > > > > Can you send a copy of your configuration? Are both the interfaces > active > > > (i.e. link state up)? You shouldn't need anything else to get a static > > > route to work. > > > > > > -mike > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xorp-users-bounces at xorp.org [mailto:xorp-users-bounces at xorp.org] > On > > > Behalf Of Vikram > > > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 12:27 AM > > > To: xorp-users at xorp.org > > > Subject: [Xorp-users] Cant get xorp to modify kernel routes > > > > > > hi, > > > > > > I configured xorp to get the 2 interfaces of my PC up and running. > > > Then I tried to configure certain static routes. The routes dont show up > > > in > > > the kernel routing table. I am using minimum configuration ie I just > > > configured the interfaces only. what else do I need to do? Also tell me > > > whats the minimum configuration required to use xorp to modify and > > > configure > > > static routes on my linux system. > > > > > > vpd > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Xorp-users mailing list > > > Xorp-users at xorp.org > > > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Xorp-users mailing list > > Xorp-users at xorp.org > > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users > From pavlin at icir.org Mon Dec 4 21:47:15 2006 From: pavlin at icir.org (Pavlin Radoslavov) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 21:47:15 -0800 Subject: [Xorp-users] Cant get xorp to modify kernel routes In-Reply-To: Message from Vikram of "Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:29:50 EST." <5ebdd4460612042129j61c4d51cm456704ab4841441@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200612050547.kB55lFTu095384@possum.icir.org> Vikram wrote: > My configuration file looks like this:- The next-hop for static route 16.25.0.0/16 is invalid. It is set to 0.0.0.0 while it should be the IP address of a directly connected router. FYI, if you want to configure a route that points toward a particular network interface, then you can use interface-route instead. Regards, Pavlin > /*XORP Configuration File, v1.0*/ > protocols { > static { > disable: false > route 16.25.0.0/16 { > next-hop: 0.0.0.0 > metric: 1 > } > } > } > interfaces { > restore-original-config-on-shutdown: false > interface eth0 { > disable: false > discard: false > description: "eth0" > vif eth0 { > disable: false > address 10.20.50.150 { > prefix-length: 16 > broadcast: 10.20.255.255 > disable: false > } > } > } > interface eth1 { > disable: false > discard: false > description: "eth1" > vif eth1 { > disable: false > address 192.168.0.10 { > prefix-length: 24 > broadcast: 192.168.0.255 > disable: false > } > } > } > } > -------------- > I checked up in xorpsh and the routes r not showing up in the RIB. > > What do u think is the problem??? > > vpd From atanu at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU Tue Dec 5 11:48:32 2006 From: atanu at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (Atanu Ghosh) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 11:48:32 -0800 Subject: [Xorp-users] peer-port & local-port in BGP In-Reply-To: Message from Soner =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sevin=E7?= of "Mon, 04 Dec 2006 20:24:26 PST." <20061205042426.97983.qmail@web60025.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <29966.1165348112@tigger.icir.org> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: diff Url: http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/pipermail/xorp-users/attachments/20061205/c4a46773/attachment.ksh -------------- next part -------------- >>>>> "Soner" == Soner <"Sevin?" > writes: Soner> Hi, Thanks very much for reply. In fact once I set up the Soner> routers, I will not need to change the port numbers later Soner> on. So, enabling different port numbers can be helpful in my Soner> situation. How can I enable them? Thank you, Soner Soner> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Atanu Ghosh" Soner> To: "Soner Sevin?" Soner> Cc: Sent: Soner> Monday, December 04, 2006 6:26 PM Subject: Re: [Xorp-users] Soner> peer-port & local-port in BGP >> Hi, >> >> The setting of the peer-port and local-port Soner> currently have no effect. It >> is possible to enable them but then after initial Soner> configuration it would >> not be possible to change any of the parameters Soner> associated with a peer. >> Atanu. >> >>>>>>> "Soner" == Soner <"Sevin?" Soner> > writes: >> Soner> Hi, Does anybody know whether there is a problem with using Soner> peer-port and local-port other than 179 in BGP peerings. I Soner> have loaded a configuration with port numbers, and Soner> successfully commited: >> Soner> 1st peer: >> Soner> peer-port : 48888 local-port : 50000 >> Soner> But, it seems that port numbers are not changed; they are Soner> seen as 179 still, when I run "show bgp peers". >> Soner> Thank you. >> Soner> >> Soner> ____________________________________________________________________________________ Soner> Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Soner> Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com >> Soner> _______________________________________________ Xorp-users Soner> mailing list Xorp-users at xorp.org Soner> Soner> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users >> Soner> ____________________________________________________________________________________ Soner> Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Soner> Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com Soner> _______________________________________________ Xorp-users Soner> mailing list Xorp-users at xorp.org Soner> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users From curtiss at imrockies.net Tue Dec 5 17:38:45 2006 From: curtiss at imrockies.net (Phillip J. Curtiss) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:38:45 -0700 Subject: [Xorp-users] establishing a tunnel Message-ID: <45761F25.9020807@imrockies.net> I have a configuration that requires the use of the bootable CDROM xorp image. It all works well, but I need to establish a site-to-site tunnel from the CDROM-based xorp server to another site (cisco 2811). I can do this at the command line, but that tunnel goes away when the machine reboots as the state is not save anywhere. Is there a way to establish a site-to-site tunnel through the xorp configuration itself by using an interface command or some other? thanks. Phil Curtiss -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: curtiss.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 384 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/pipermail/xorp-users/attachments/20061205/c742c350/attachment.vcf From atanu at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU Tue Dec 5 19:34:24 2006 From: atanu at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (Atanu Ghosh) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:34:24 -0800 Subject: [Xorp-users] establishing a tunnel In-Reply-To: Message from "Phillip J. Curtiss" of "Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:38:45 MST." <45761F25.9020807@imrockies.net> Message-ID: <50304.1165376064@tigger.icir.org> Hi, Currently XORP can't be used to configure tunnels. One solution is to build a custom LiveCD with an rc file that creates the tunnel before XORP starts. Atanu. >>>>> "Phillip" == Phillip J Curtiss writes: Phillip> I have a configuration that requires the use of the Phillip> bootable CDROM xorp image. It all works well, but I need to Phillip> establish a site-to-site tunnel from the CDROM-based xorp Phillip> server to another site (cisco 2811). I can do this at the Phillip> command line, but that tunnel goes away when the machine Phillip> reboots as the state is not save anywhere. Is there a way Phillip> to establish a site-to-site tunnel through the xorp Phillip> configuration itself by using an interface command or some Phillip> other? Phillip> thanks. Phil Curtiss Phillip> _______________________________________________ Xorp-users Phillip> mailing list Xorp-users at xorp.org Phillip> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users From vikram.dhir at gmail.com Sun Dec 10 22:48:33 2006 From: vikram.dhir at gmail.com (Vikram) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:48:33 -0500 Subject: [Xorp-users] Testing XORP in a Multicasting Environment Message-ID: <5ebdd4460612102248u1975ecbey9b5f48f41d0cf68@mail.gmail.com> Hi, I am trying to run XORP in a multicasting environment. I m using RH9 and my PC is on a LAN. I m running XORP on my PC. Whats the minimum configuration required to do that? and how do I test that multicasting is working fine? Do I have to make changes in the default kernel? vpd From pavlin at icir.org Mon Dec 11 00:38:39 2006 From: pavlin at icir.org (Pavlin Radoslavov) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 00:38:39 -0800 Subject: [Xorp-users] Testing XORP in a Multicasting Environment In-Reply-To: Message from Vikram of "Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:48:33 EST." <5ebdd4460612102248u1975ecbey9b5f48f41d0cf68@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200612110838.kBB8cd6Z007246@possum.icir.org> > I am trying to run XORP in a multicasting environment. I m using RH9 > and my PC is on a LAN. I m running XORP on my PC. Whats the minimum > configuration required to do that? and how do I test that multicasting > is working fine? Do I have to make changes in the default kernel? It is not clear from your email whether your PC is connected to 2+ LANs and will serve as a multicast router, or whether it is a leaf node connected to a single LAN segment. If the latter, then it is unclear what purpose your PC will have on that LAN, because some other node is suppose to be the multicast router for that LAN. Anyway, at the end of this email is a sample configuration that enables IGMP and PIM-SM. The configuration assumes: 1. There are two network interfaces (eth0 and eth1), and those interfaces have configured IP addresses before starting XORP. 2. The IP address of one of the interfaces is 10.0.0.1. See the XORP user manual for configuration details. To test whether the multicast routing is working, start a multicast sender and a multicast receiver (on separate LANs interconnected by the multicast routers). However, make sure the TTL of the sender is large enough to reach the receiver (the default multicast TTL is 1). In general, the PIM-SM support must be enabled in the UNIX kernel. Though, I don't know whether the RedHat 9 kernel has PIM-SM support enabled by default. If the PIM-SM support is not enabled, then see Section 13.3 "Configuring PIM-SM" in the XORP user manual regarding the kernel configuration options you need to enable before recompiling your kernel. Regards, Pavlin ================================================================ interfaces { interface eth0 { default-system-config } interface eth1 { default-system-config } } plumbing { mfea4 { interface eth0 { vif eth0 { disable: false } } interface eth1 { vif eth1 { disable: false } } interface register_vif { vif register_vif { disable: false } } } } protocols { igmp { interface eth0 { vif eth0 { disable: false } } interface eth1 { vif eth1 { disable: false } } } pimsm4 { interface eth0 { vif eth0 { disable: false } } interface eth1 { vif eth1 { disable: false } } interface register_vif { vif register_vif { disable: false } } static-rps { rp 10.0.0.1 { group-prefix 224.0.0.0/4 { } } } } fib2mrib { disable: false } } ================================================================ From cruaux at enseirb.fr Mon Dec 11 06:54:31 2006 From: cruaux at enseirb.fr (CRUAUX Sebastien) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:54:31 +0100 Subject: [Xorp-users] Multicast problem Message-ID: <20061211155431.h8dpovnce88o88o4@www.enseirb.fr> Hi, Here is my network configuration : source------(R1)-------destination xorp is running on R1, pimsm, igmp, mfea4, fea and fib2mrib are enabled. I am using VLC to send a multicast traffic but nothing is forwarded to the destination. Everything seems to be good in the configuration and IGMP Membership Reports and PIM Hello are received in the xorp log messages. R1 is the RP, is this a problem ? (I configured it statically) Should I use another router for the RP ? I mean, as : source----(R1)------(R2=RP)-------destination Regards, Sebastien ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. From pavlin at icir.org Mon Dec 11 09:56:57 2006 From: pavlin at icir.org (Pavlin Radoslavov) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:56:57 -0800 Subject: [Xorp-users] Multicast problem In-Reply-To: Message from CRUAUX Sebastien of "Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:54:31 +0100." <20061211155431.h8dpovnce88o88o4@www.enseirb.fr> Message-ID: <200612111756.kBBHuvbh011708@possum.icir.org> > source------(R1)-------destination > > xorp is running on R1, pimsm, igmp, mfea4, fea and fib2mrib are enabled. > > I am using VLC to send a multicast traffic but nothing is forwarded to > the destination. > Everything seems to be good in the configuration and IGMP Membership > Reports and PIM Hello are received in the xorp log messages. > > R1 is the RP, is this a problem ? (I configured it statically) > Should I use another router for the RP ? I mean, as : > > source----(R1)------(R2=RP)-------destination Static RP is fine and actually recommended for your setup. And no, there is no need for a second router. Two of the most frequent issues are: 1. Is the TTL of the sender's data traffic large enough? By default the TTL is 1 so the data traffic won't be forwarded. 2. Are there any firewall rules that might affect the multicast forwrading in any way (e.g., rules that filter the IGMP messages, etc). If the issue is not one of those two, then please send your XORP configuration and the output of the following xorpsh commands: show igmp group show pim join Regards, Pavlin From vikram.dhir at gmail.com Mon Dec 11 22:41:54 2006 From: vikram.dhir at gmail.com (Vikram) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:41:54 -0500 Subject: [Xorp-users] Testing XORP in a Multicasting Environment In-Reply-To: <200612110838.kBB8cd6Z007246@possum.icir.org> References: <5ebdd4460612102248u1975ecbey9b5f48f41d0cf68@mail.gmail.com> <200612110838.kBB8cd6Z007246@possum.icir.org> Message-ID: <5ebdd4460612112241vd4dc413t15a8854669afa94c@mail.gmail.com> I am trying to run XORP with your configuration but XORP exits giving some errors. The errors are attached with this mail. On 12/11/06, Pavlin Radoslavov wrote: > > I am trying to run XORP in a multicasting environment. I m using RH9 > > and my PC is on a LAN. I m running XORP on my PC. Whats the minimum > > configuration required to do that? and how do I test that multicasting > > is working fine? Do I have to make changes in the default kernel? > > It is not clear from your email whether your PC is connected to 2+ > LANs and will serve as a multicast router, or whether it is a leaf > node connected to a single LAN segment. If the latter, then it is > unclear what purpose your PC will have on that LAN, because some > other node is suppose to be the multicast router for that LAN. > > Anyway, at the end of this email is a sample configuration that > enables IGMP and PIM-SM. The configuration assumes: > 1. There are two network interfaces (eth0 and eth1), and those > interfaces have configured IP addresses before starting XORP. > 2. The IP address of one of the interfaces is 10.0.0.1. > > See the XORP user manual for configuration details. > > To test whether the multicast routing is working, start a multicast > sender and a multicast receiver (on separate LANs interconnected by > the multicast routers). However, make sure the TTL of the sender is > large enough to reach the receiver (the default multicast TTL is 1). > > In general, the PIM-SM support must be enabled in the UNIX kernel. > Though, I don't know whether the RedHat 9 kernel has PIM-SM support > enabled by default. If the PIM-SM support is not enabled, then see > Section 13.3 "Configuring PIM-SM" in the XORP user manual regarding > the kernel configuration options you need to enable before > recompiling your kernel. > > Regards, > Pavlin > > ================================================================ > > interfaces { > interface eth0 { > default-system-config > } > interface eth1 { > default-system-config > } > } > > plumbing { > mfea4 { > interface eth0 { > vif eth0 { > disable: false > } > } > interface eth1 { > vif eth1 { > disable: false > } > } > interface register_vif { > vif register_vif { > disable: false > } > } > } > } > > protocols { > igmp { > interface eth0 { > vif eth0 { > disable: false > } > } > interface eth1 { > vif eth1 { > disable: false > } > } > } > > pimsm4 { > interface eth0 { > vif eth0 { > disable: false > } > } > interface eth1 { > vif eth1 { > disable: false > } > } > interface register_vif { > vif register_vif { > disable: false > } > } > > static-rps { > rp 10.0.0.1 { > group-prefix 224.0.0.0/4 { > } > } > } > } > > fib2mrib { > disable: false > } > } > > ================================================================ > -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: xorp_errors.txt Url: http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/pipermail/xorp-users/attachments/20061212/1a2747fc/attachment.txt From pavlin at icir.org Mon Dec 11 23:10:12 2006 From: pavlin at icir.org (Pavlin Radoslavov) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:10:12 -0800 Subject: [Xorp-users] Testing XORP in a Multicasting Environment In-Reply-To: Message from Vikram of "Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:41:54 EST." <5ebdd4460612112241vd4dc413t15a8854669afa94c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200612120710.kBC7ACIl092205@possum.icir.org> Vikram wrote: > I am trying to run XORP with your configuration but XORP exits giving > some errors. The errors are attached with this mail. The problematic error is the following: [ 2006/12/12 12:04:58 INFO xorp_fea MFEA ] Interface enabled Vif[eth1] pif_index: 3 vif_index: 1 addr: 192.168.1.1 subnet: 192.168.1.0/24 broadcast: 192.168.1.255 peer: 0.0.0.0 Flags: MULTICAST BROADCAST MTU: 1500 DOWN IPv4 ENABLED [ 2006/12/12 12:04:58 ERROR xorp_fea:4919 MFEA +910 mfea_node.cc start_vif ] Cannot start vif eth1: underlying vif is not UP Please make sure that the eth1 interface is UP before starting XORP. Alternatively, explicitly configure the IP address of that interface inside the XORP configuration. See the XORP user manual for details how to do that. Regards, Pavlin > > On 12/11/06, Pavlin Radoslavov wrote: > > > I am trying to run XORP in a multicasting environment. I m using RH9 > > > and my PC is on a LAN. I m running XORP on my PC. Whats the minimum > > > configuration required to do that? and how do I test that multicasting > > > is working fine? Do I have to make changes in the default kernel? > > > > It is not clear from your email whether your PC is connected to 2+ > > LANs and will serve as a multicast router, or whether it is a leaf > > node connected to a single LAN segment. If the latter, then it is > > unclear what purpose your PC will have on that LAN, because some > > other node is suppose to be the multicast router for that LAN. > > > > Anyway, at the end of this email is a sample configuration that > > enables IGMP and PIM-SM. The configuration assumes: > > 1. There are two network interfaces (eth0 and eth1), and those > > interfaces have configured IP addresses before starting XORP. > > 2. The IP address of one of the interfaces is 10.0.0.1. > > > > See the XORP user manual for configuration details. > > > > To test whether the multicast routing is working, start a multicast > > sender and a multicast receiver (on separate LANs interconnected by > > the multicast routers). However, make sure the TTL of the sender is > > large enough to reach the receiver (the default multicast TTL is 1). > > > > In general, the PIM-SM support must be enabled in the UNIX kernel. > > Though, I don't know whether the RedHat 9 kernel has PIM-SM support > > enabled by default. If the PIM-SM support is not enabled, then see > > Section 13.3 "Configuring PIM-SM" in the XORP user manual regarding > > the kernel configuration options you need to enable before > > recompiling your kernel. > > > > Regards, > > Pavlin > > > > ================================================================ > > > > interfaces { > > interface eth0 { > > default-system-config > > } > > interface eth1 { > > default-system-config > > } > > } > > > > plumbing { > > mfea4 { > > interface eth0 { > > vif eth0 { > > disable: false > > } > > } > > interface eth1 { > > vif eth1 { > > disable: false > > } > > } > > interface register_vif { > > vif register_vif { > > disable: false > > } > > } > > } > > } > > > > protocols { > > igmp { > > interface eth0 { > > vif eth0 { > > disable: false > > } > > } > > interface eth1 { > > vif eth1 { > > disable: false > > } > > } > > } > > > > pimsm4 { > > interface eth0 { > > vif eth0 { > > disable: false > > } > > } > > interface eth1 { > > vif eth1 { > > disable: false > > } > > } > > interface register_vif { > > vif register_vif { > > disable: false > > } > > } > > > > static-rps { > > rp 10.0.0.1 { > > group-prefix 224.0.0.0/4 { > > } > > } > > } > > } > > > > fib2mrib { > > disable: false > > } > > } > > > > ================================================================ > > > _______________________________________________ > Xorp-users mailing list > Xorp-users at xorp.org > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users From vikram.dhir at gmail.com Tue Dec 12 21:27:52 2006 From: vikram.dhir at gmail.com (Vikram) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 00:27:52 -0500 Subject: [Xorp-users] Testing XORP in a Multicasting Environment In-Reply-To: <200612120710.kBC7ACIl092205@possum.icir.org> References: <5ebdd4460612112241vd4dc413t15a8854669afa94c@mail.gmail.com> <200612120710.kBC7ACIl092205@possum.icir.org> Message-ID: <5ebdd4460612122127m3e516645pba7adbd879e7f1d6@mail.gmail.com> I have configured the interfaces in both ways ie before starting XORP and also within the XORP configuration. I m attaching the XORP configuration file that I m using. What are the other possible issues? On 12/12/06, Pavlin Radoslavov wrote: > Vikram wrote: > > > I am trying to run XORP with your configuration but XORP exits giving > > some errors. The errors are attached with this mail. > > The problematic error is the following: > > [ 2006/12/12 12:04:58 INFO xorp_fea MFEA ] Interface enabled > Vif[eth1] pif_index: 3 vif_index: 1 addr: 192.168.1.1 subnet: 192.168.1.0/24 > broadcast: 192.168.1.255 peer: 0.0.0.0 Flags: MULTICAST BROADCAST > MTU: 1500 DOWN IPv4 ENABLED > [ 2006/12/12 12:04:58 ERROR xorp_fea:4919 MFEA +910 mfea_node.cc > start_vif ] Cannot start vif eth1: underlying vif is not UP > > Please make sure that the eth1 interface is UP before starting XORP. > Alternatively, explicitly configure the IP address of that interface > inside the XORP configuration. See the XORP user manual for details > how to do that. > > Regards, > Pavlin > > > > > > On 12/11/06, Pavlin Radoslavov wrote: > > > > I am trying to run XORP in a multicasting environment. I m using RH9 > > > > and my PC is on a LAN. I m running XORP on my PC. Whats the minimum > > > > configuration required to do that? and how do I test that multicasting > > > > is working fine? Do I have to make changes in the default kernel? > > > > > > It is not clear from your email whether your PC is connected to 2+ > > > LANs and will serve as a multicast router, or whether it is a leaf > > > node connected to a single LAN segment. If the latter, then it is > > > unclear what purpose your PC will have on that LAN, because some > > > other node is suppose to be the multicast router for that LAN. > > > > > > Anyway, at the end of this email is a sample configuration that > > > enables IGMP and PIM-SM. The configuration assumes: > > > 1. There are two network interfaces (eth0 and eth1), and those > > > interfaces have configured IP addresses before starting XORP. > > > 2. The IP address of one of the interfaces is 10.0.0.1. > > > > > > See the XORP user manual for configuration details. > > > > > > To test whether the multicast routing is working, start a multicast > > > sender and a multicast receiver (on separate LANs interconnected by > > > the multicast routers). However, make sure the TTL of the sender is > > > large enough to reach the receiver (the default multicast TTL is 1). > > > > > > In general, the PIM-SM support must be enabled in the UNIX kernel. > > > Though, I don't know whether the RedHat 9 kernel has PIM-SM support > > > enabled by default. If the PIM-SM support is not enabled, then see > > > Section 13.3 "Configuring PIM-SM" in the XORP user manual regarding > > > the kernel configuration options you need to enable before > > > recompiling your kernel. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Pavlin > > > > > > ================================================================ > > > > > > interfaces { > > > interface eth0 { > > > default-system-config > > > } > > > interface eth1 { > > > default-system-config > > > } > > > } > > > > > > plumbing { > > > mfea4 { > > > interface eth0 { > > > vif eth0 { > > > disable: false > > > } > > > } > > > interface eth1 { > > > vif eth1 { > > > disable: false > > > } > > > } > > > interface register_vif { > > > vif register_vif { > > > disable: false > > > } > > > } > > > } > > > } > > > > > > protocols { > > > igmp { > > > interface eth0 { > > > vif eth0 { > > > disable: false > > > } > > > } > > > interface eth1 { > > > vif eth1 { > > > disable: false > > > } > > > } > > > } > > > > > > pimsm4 { > > > interface eth0 { > > > vif eth0 { > > > disable: false > > > } > > > } > > > interface eth1 { > > > vif eth1 { > > > disable: false > > > } > > > } > > > interface register_vif { > > > vif register_vif { > > > disable: false > > > } > > > } > > > > > > static-rps { > > > rp 10.0.0.1 { > > > group-prefix 224.0.0.0/4 { > > > } > > > } > > > } > > > } > > > > > > fib2mrib { > > > disable: false > > > } > > > } > > > > > > ================================================================ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Xorp-users mailing list > > Xorp-users at xorp.org > > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: config.boot Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1181 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/pipermail/xorp-users/attachments/20061213/db14c68c/attachment.obj From pavlin at icir.org Tue Dec 12 23:57:56 2006 From: pavlin at icir.org (Pavlin Radoslavov) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:57:56 -0800 Subject: [Xorp-users] Testing XORP in a Multicasting Environment In-Reply-To: Message from Vikram of "Wed, 13 Dec 2006 00:27:52 EST." <5ebdd4460612122127m3e516645pba7adbd879e7f1d6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200612130757.kBD7vuVj024656@possum.icir.org> > I have configured the interfaces in both ways ie before starting XORP > and also within the XORP configuration. I m attaching the XORP > configuration file that I m using. What are the other possible issues? The original configuration file I sent you has statements like: interfaces { interface eth0 { default-system-config } interface eth1 { default-system-config } } This basically instructs XORP to use whatever network interface information has been configured before starting XORP. I.e., the information (per interface) you will see with the "ip addr" Linux command. If a network interface wasn't UP (as it is probably your case for eth1), then XORP cannot use it for multicast purpose, hence the errors you see. The reason I suggested the above configuration is because I don't know the real IP addresses on your interfaces. To fix the problem then you need to do either: (a) Run "ifconfig eth1 up" as a root OR (b) Replace the above "interfaces" XORP configuration with something like: interfaces { interface eth0 { vif eth0 { address 10.0.0.1 { prefix-length: 24 } } } interface eth1 { vif eth1 { address 10.1.0.1 { prefix-length: 24 } } } } Obviously, you need to use IP addresses and prefix-length that match your setup. Regards, Pavlin > On 12/12/06, Pavlin Radoslavov wrote: > > Vikram wrote: > > > > > I am trying to run XORP with your configuration but XORP exits giving > > > some errors. The errors are attached with this mail. > > > > The problematic error is the following: > > > > [ 2006/12/12 12:04:58 INFO xorp_fea MFEA ] Interface enabled > > Vif[eth1] pif_index: 3 vif_index: 1 addr: 192.168.1.1 subnet: 192.168.1.0/24 > > broadcast: 192.168.1.255 peer: 0.0.0.0 Flags: MULTICAST BROADCAST > > MTU: 1500 DOWN IPv4 ENABLED > > [ 2006/12/12 12:04:58 ERROR xorp_fea:4919 MFEA +910 mfea_node.cc > > start_vif ] Cannot start vif eth1: underlying vif is not UP > > > > Please make sure that the eth1 interface is UP before starting XORP. > > Alternatively, explicitly configure the IP address of that interface > > inside the XORP configuration. See the XORP user manual for details > > how to do that. > > > > Regards, > > Pavlin > > > > > > > > > > On 12/11/06, Pavlin Radoslavov wrote: > > > > > I am trying to run XORP in a multicasting environment. I m using RH9 > > > > > and my PC is on a LAN. I m running XORP on my PC. Whats the minimum > > > > > configuration required to do that? and how do I test that multicasting > > > > > is working fine? Do I have to make changes in the default kernel? > > > > > > > > It is not clear from your email whether your PC is connected to 2+ > > > > LANs and will serve as a multicast router, or whether it is a leaf > > > > node connected to a single LAN segment. If the latter, then it is > > > > unclear what purpose your PC will have on that LAN, because some > > > > other node is suppose to be the multicast router for that LAN. > > > > > > > > Anyway, at the end of this email is a sample configuration that > > > > enables IGMP and PIM-SM. The configuration assumes: > > > > 1. There are two network interfaces (eth0 and eth1), and those > > > > interfaces have configured IP addresses before starting XORP. > > > > 2. The IP address of one of the interfaces is 10.0.0.1. > > > > > > > > See the XORP user manual for configuration details. > > > > > > > > To test whether the multicast routing is working, start a multicast > > > > sender and a multicast receiver (on separate LANs interconnected by > > > > the multicast routers). However, make sure the TTL of the sender is > > > > large enough to reach the receiver (the default multicast TTL is 1). > > > > > > > > In general, the PIM-SM support must be enabled in the UNIX kernel. > > > > Though, I don't know whether the RedHat 9 kernel has PIM-SM support > > > > enabled by default. If the PIM-SM support is not enabled, then see > > > > Section 13.3 "Configuring PIM-SM" in the XORP user manual regarding > > > > the kernel configuration options you need to enable before > > > > recompiling your kernel. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Pavlin > > > > > > > > ================================================================ > > > > > > > > interfaces { > > > > interface eth0 { > > > > default-system-config > > > > } > > > > interface eth1 { > > > > default-system-config > > > > } > > > > } > > > > > > > > plumbing { > > > > mfea4 { > > > > interface eth0 { > > > > vif eth0 { > > > > disable: false > > > > } > > > > } > > > > interface eth1 { > > > > vif eth1 { > > > > disable: false > > > > } > > > > } > > > > interface register_vif { > > > > vif register_vif { > > > > disable: false > > > > } > > > > } > > > > } > > > > } > > > > > > > > protocols { > > > > igmp { > > > > interface eth0 { > > > > vif eth0 { > > > > disable: false > > > > } > > > > } > > > > interface eth1 { > > > > vif eth1 { > > > > disable: false > > > > } > > > > } > > > > } > > > > > > > > pimsm4 { > > > > interface eth0 { > > > > vif eth0 { > > > > disable: false > > > > } > > > > } > > > > interface eth1 { > > > > vif eth1 { > > > > disable: false > > > > } > > > > } > > > > interface register_vif { > > > > vif register_vif { > > > > disable: false > > > > } > > > > } > > > > > > > > static-rps { > > > > rp 10.0.0.1 { > > > > group-prefix 224.0.0.0/4 { > > > > } > > > > } > > > > } > > > > } > > > > > > > > fib2mrib { > > > > disable: false > > > > } > > > > } > > > > > > > > ================================================================ > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Xorp-users mailing list > > > Xorp-users at xorp.org > > > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users > > > _______________________________________________ > Xorp-users mailing list > Xorp-users at xorp.org > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users From cruaux at enseirb.fr Thu Dec 14 11:11:00 2006 From: cruaux at enseirb.fr (Sebastien Cruaux) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:11:00 +0100 Subject: [Xorp-users] Multicast problem In-Reply-To: <200612111756.kBBHuvbh011708@possum.icir.org> References: <200612111756.kBBHuvbh011708@possum.icir.org> Message-ID: <4581A1C4.1090108@enseirb.fr> Hi, Here is my network configuration : (A) 192.168.0.3/24 --------------- 192.168.0.2/24 (Router) 172.17.0.10 ----------- 172.17.0.1 (Source) The flow should go from the Source (a VLC server) to A but it is not send to the 192.168.0.0/24 network. There is no firewall. We checked the ttl and it was set to 1, we set it to 10 but the flow is still not going on the 192.168.0.2 interface of the router. No igmp packets are sent on this interface. As you can see in the "show pim join" message, the group is not "joined". I think that comes from the rp-static address. I set it to 172.17.0.10 as the flow comes from this interface. Is it the right way to configure it ? When i start the multicast flow i get this from xorp log : [ 2006/12/14 15:50:11 TRACE xorp_pimsm4 PIM ] TX PIM_HELLO from 172.17.0.10 to 224.0.0.13 on vif eth0 [ 2006/12/14 15:50:19 TRACE xorp_fea MFEA ] RX kernel signal: message_type = 1 vif_index = 1 src = 172.17.0.1 dst = 224.2.120.250 [ 2006/12/14 15:50:19 TRACE xorp_pimsm4 PIM ] RX NOCACHE signal from MFEA_4: vif_index = 1 src = 172.17.0.1 dst = 224.2.120.250 [ 2006/12/14 15:50:19 TRACE xorp_pimsm4 PIM ] Add MFC entry: (172.17.0.1, 224.2.120.250) iif = 1 olist = ... olist_disable_wrongvif = OOO [ 2006/12/14 15:50:19 TRACE xorp_pimsm4 PIM ] Add dataflow monitor: source = 172.17.0.1 group = 224.2.120.250 threshold_interval_sec = 210 threshold_interval_usec = 0 threshold_packets = 0 threshold_bytes = 0 is_threshold_in_packets = 1 is_threshold_in_bytes = 0 is_geq_upcall = 0 is_leq_upcall = 1 [ 2006/12/14 15:50:19 TRACE xorp_fea MFEA ] Add MFC entry: (172.17.0.1, 224.2.120.250) iif = 1 olist = ... Here is the show pim join (i deleted some entries) : root at localhost.localdomain> show pim join Group Source RP Flags 224.2.127.254 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 WC Upstream interface (RP): register_vif Upstream MRIB next hop (RP): UNKNOWN Upstream RPF'(*,G): UNKNOWN Upstream state: Joined Join timer: 25 Local receiver include WC: .O. Joins RP: ... Joins WC: ... Join state: ... Prune state: ... Prune pending state: ... I am assert winner state: .O. I am assert loser state: ... Assert winner WC: .O. Assert lost WC: ... Assert tracking WC: .OO Could assert WC: .O. I am DR: OOO Immediate olist RP: ... Immediate olist WC: .O. Inherited olist SG: .O. Inherited olist SG_RPT: .O. PIM include WC: .O. 239.195.255.255 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 WC .......... 239.249.165.76 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 WC .......... 239.255.255.250 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 WC .......... 239.255.255.255 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 WC .......... 224.2.120.250 172.17.0.1 172.17.0.10 SG DirectlyConnectedS Upstream interface (S): eth0 Upstream interface (RP): register_vif Upstream MRIB next hop (RP): UNKNOWN Upstream MRIB next hop (S): UNKNOWN Upstream RPF'(S,G): UNKNOWN Upstream state: NotJoined Register state: RegisterNoinfo RegisterNotCouldRegister Join timer: -1 KAT(S,G) running: true Local receiver include WC: ... Local receiver include SG: ... Local receiver exclude SG: ... Joins RP: ... Joins WC: ... Joins SG: ... Join state: ... Prune state: ... Prune pending state: ... I am assert winner state: ... I am assert loser state: ... Assert winner WC: ... Assert winner SG: ... Assert lost WC: ... Assert lost SG: ... Assert lost SG_RPT: ... Assert tracking SG: ... Could assert WC: ... Could assert SG: ... I am DR: OOO Immediate olist RP: ... Immediate olist WC: ... Immediate olist SG: ... Inherited olist SG: ... Inherited olist SG_RPT: ... PIM include WC: ... PIM include SG: ... PIM exclude SG: ... 224.2.127.254 172.17.0.1 172.17.0.10 SG SPT DirectlyConnectedS .......... The show igmp group (the 224.2.120.250 is not present) : root at localhost.localdomain> show igmp group Interface Group Source LastReported Timeout V State ath0 224.0.0.2 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.2 185 2 E ath0 224.0.0.13 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.2 185 2 E ath0 224.0.0.22 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.2 185 2 E ath0 224.0.0.251 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.2 186 2 E eth0 224.0.0.2 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 185 2 E eth0 224.0.0.5 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 184 2 E eth0 224.0.0.6 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 194 2 E eth0 224.0.0.9 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 189 2 E eth0 224.0.0.13 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 189 2 E eth0 224.0.0.22 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 190 2 E eth0 224.0.0.251 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 185 2 E eth0 224.2.127.254 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.2 194 2 E eth0 239.195.255.255 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.2 189 2 E eth0 239.249.165.76 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.100 191 2 E eth0 239.255.255.250 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.4 185 2 E eth0 239.255.255.255 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.2 191 2 E My config.boot : interfaces { interface eth0 { description: "data interface" disable: false /* default-system-config */ vif eth0 { disable: false address 172.17.0.10 { prefix-length: 24 broadcast: 172.17.0.255 disable: false } } } interface ath0 { description: "data interface" disable: false /* default-system-config */ vif ath0 { disable: false address 192.168.0.2 { prefix-length: 24 broadcast: 192.168.0.255 disable: false } } } } plumbing { mfea4 { disable: false interface eth0 { vif eth0 { disable: false } } interface ath0 { vif ath0 { disable: false } } interface register_vif { vif register_vif { disable: false } } traceoptions { flag all { disable: false } } } } protocols { igmp { disable: false interface eth0 { vif eth0 { disable: false } } interface ath0 { vif ath0 { disable: false } } traceoptions { flag all { disable: false } } } } protocols { pimsm4 { disable: false interface eth0 { vif eth0 { disable: false } } interface ath0 { vif ath0 { disable: false } } interface register_vif { vif register_vif { /* Note: this vif should be always enabled */ disable: false } } static-rps { rp 172.17.0.10 { group-prefix 224.0.0.0/4 { /* rp-priority: 192 */ /* hash-mask-len: 30 */ } } } traceoptions { flag all { disable: false } } } } protocols { fib2mrib { disable: false } } Regards, Sebastien. Pavlin Radoslavov a ?crit : >> source------(R1)-------destination >> >> xorp is running on R1, pimsm, igmp, mfea4, fea and fib2mrib are enabled. >> >> I am using VLC to send a multicast traffic but nothing is forwarded to >> the destination. >> Everything seems to be good in the configuration and IGMP Membership >> Reports and PIM Hello are received in the xorp log messages. >> >> R1 is the RP, is this a problem ? (I configured it statically) >> Should I use another router for the RP ? I mean, as : >> >> source----(R1)------(R2=RP)-------destination >> > > Static RP is fine and actually recommended for your setup. > And no, there is no need for a second router. > > Two of the most frequent issues are: > > 1. Is the TTL of the sender's data traffic large enough? > By default the TTL is 1 so the data traffic won't be forwarded. > > 2. Are there any firewall rules that might affect the multicast > forwrading in any way (e.g., rules that filter the IGMP messages, > etc). > > If the issue is not one of those two, then please send your XORP > configuration and the output of the following xorpsh commands: > > show igmp group > show pim join > > Regards, > Pavlin > > From pavlin at icir.org Thu Dec 14 16:14:59 2006 From: pavlin at icir.org (Pavlin Radoslavov) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:14:59 -0800 Subject: [Xorp-users] Multicast problem In-Reply-To: Message from Sebastien Cruaux of "Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:11:00 +0100." <4581A1C4.1090108@enseirb.fr> Message-ID: <200612150014.kBF0ExEo046775@possum.icir.org> > Here is my network configuration : > > (A) 192.168.0.3/24 --------------- 192.168.0.2/24 (Router) 172.17.0.10 > ----------- 172.17.0.1 (Source) > > The flow should go from the Source (a VLC server) to A but it is not > send to the 192.168.0.0/24 network. > > There is no firewall. > We checked the ttl and it was set to 1, we set it to 10 but the flow is > still not going on the 192.168.0.2 interface of the router. > No igmp packets are sent on this interface. > > As you can see in the "show pim join" message, the group is not > "joined". I think that comes from the rp-static address. I set it to > 172.17.0.10 as the flow comes from this interface. Is it the right way > to configure it ? It shouldn't matter which interface you choose for the rp-static address. Which is your test multicast group? The "show pim join" information is about 224.2.127.254, but later you mention that group 224.2.120.250 is not present in the "show igmp group" output. I will presume your test group is 224.2.120.250. For multicast forwarding to work, the directly-connected receiver must be detected by IGMP (i.e., it must be seen by "show igmp group"). Hence, it appears that the problem is that the receiver is not detected by IGMP. To detect the problem, could you run a sniffer on the receiver's interface (ath0) listening for IGMP packets. E.g., tcpdump -i ath0 -n -vvv -s 0 -x proto \\igmp You should see periodic IGMP Query messages originated by XORP. When the receiver joins, you should see an IGMP Report originated by the receiver. If you don't see the IGMP Report messages, then there is something wrong with the IGMP packets delivery on that interfaces. BTW, is ath0 a wireless interface? If yes, then probably there is something odd with the IGMP packets on that interface, so this is where you should concentrate your debugging effort. Some of the things to check are: * Is the Linux "ip addr" command showing the MULTICAST flag for ath0? * Do you see the IGMP Report messages if you run the tcpdump command on the receiver? * Do you see the IGMP Report messages if you run the tcpdump command on XORP? Note that there is some chance for "show igmp group" to show the 224.2.120.250 membership on ath0 _only_ when you are running tcpdump on that interface. I don't want to get into detailed speculations why you might see something like this (it might have to do something with the PROMISC interface flag), but let me know if this is the case. Regards, Pavlin > When i start the multicast flow i get this from xorp log : > > [ 2006/12/14 15:50:11 TRACE xorp_pimsm4 PIM ] TX PIM_HELLO from > 172.17.0.10 to 224.0.0.13 on vif eth0 > [ 2006/12/14 15:50:19 TRACE xorp_fea MFEA ] RX kernel signal: > message_type = 1 vif_index = 1 src = 172.17.0.1 dst = 224.2.120.250 > [ 2006/12/14 15:50:19 TRACE xorp_pimsm4 PIM ] RX NOCACHE signal from > MFEA_4: vif_index = 1 src = 172.17.0.1 dst = 224.2.120.250 > [ 2006/12/14 15:50:19 TRACE xorp_pimsm4 PIM ] Add MFC entry: > (172.17.0.1, 224.2.120.250) iif = 1 olist = ... olist_disable_wrongvif = OOO > [ 2006/12/14 15:50:19 TRACE xorp_pimsm4 PIM ] Add dataflow monitor: > source = 172.17.0.1 group = 224.2.120.250 threshold_interval_sec = 210 > threshold_interval_usec = 0 threshold_packets = 0 threshold_bytes = 0 > is_threshold_in_packets = 1 is_threshold_in_bytes = 0 is_geq_upcall = 0 > is_leq_upcall = 1 > [ 2006/12/14 15:50:19 TRACE xorp_fea MFEA ] Add MFC entry: (172.17.0.1, > 224.2.120.250) iif = 1 olist = ... > > > Here is the show pim join (i deleted some entries) : > > > root at localhost.localdomain> show pim join > Group Source RP Flags > 224.2.127.254 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 WC > Upstream interface (RP): register_vif > Upstream MRIB next hop (RP): UNKNOWN > Upstream RPF'(*,G): UNKNOWN > Upstream state: Joined > Join timer: 25 > Local receiver include WC: .O. > Joins RP: ... > Joins WC: ... > Join state: ... > Prune state: ... > Prune pending state: ... > I am assert winner state: .O. > I am assert loser state: ... > Assert winner WC: .O. > Assert lost WC: ... > Assert tracking WC: .OO > Could assert WC: .O. > I am DR: OOO > Immediate olist RP: ... > Immediate olist WC: .O. > Inherited olist SG: .O. > Inherited olist SG_RPT: .O. > PIM include WC: .O. > 239.195.255.255 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 WC > .......... > 239.249.165.76 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 WC > .......... > 239.255.255.250 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 WC > .......... > 239.255.255.255 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 WC > .......... > 224.2.120.250 172.17.0.1 172.17.0.10 SG DirectlyConnectedS > Upstream interface (S): eth0 > Upstream interface (RP): register_vif > Upstream MRIB next hop (RP): UNKNOWN > Upstream MRIB next hop (S): UNKNOWN > Upstream RPF'(S,G): UNKNOWN > Upstream state: NotJoined > Register state: RegisterNoinfo RegisterNotCouldRegister > Join timer: -1 > KAT(S,G) running: true > Local receiver include WC: ... > Local receiver include SG: ... > Local receiver exclude SG: ... > Joins RP: ... > Joins WC: ... > Joins SG: ... > Join state: ... > Prune state: ... > Prune pending state: ... > I am assert winner state: ... > I am assert loser state: ... > Assert winner WC: ... > Assert winner SG: ... > Assert lost WC: ... > Assert lost SG: ... > Assert lost SG_RPT: ... > Assert tracking SG: ... > Could assert WC: ... > Could assert SG: ... > I am DR: OOO > Immediate olist RP: ... > Immediate olist WC: ... > Immediate olist SG: ... > Inherited olist SG: ... > Inherited olist SG_RPT: ... > PIM include WC: ... > PIM include SG: ... > PIM exclude SG: ... > 224.2.127.254 172.17.0.1 172.17.0.10 SG SPT DirectlyConnectedS > .......... > > > > The show igmp group (the 224.2.120.250 is not present) : > > root at localhost.localdomain> show igmp group > Interface Group Source LastReported Timeout V State > ath0 224.0.0.2 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.2 185 2 E > ath0 224.0.0.13 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.2 185 2 E > ath0 224.0.0.22 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.2 185 2 E > ath0 224.0.0.251 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.2 186 2 E > eth0 224.0.0.2 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 185 2 E > eth0 224.0.0.5 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 184 2 E > eth0 224.0.0.6 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 194 2 E > eth0 224.0.0.9 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 189 2 E > eth0 224.0.0.13 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 189 2 E > eth0 224.0.0.22 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 190 2 E > eth0 224.0.0.251 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.10 185 2 E > eth0 224.2.127.254 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.2 194 2 E > eth0 239.195.255.255 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.2 189 2 E > eth0 239.249.165.76 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.100 191 2 E > eth0 239.255.255.250 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.4 185 2 E > eth0 239.255.255.255 0.0.0.0 172.17.0.2 191 2 E > > My config.boot : > > interfaces { > interface eth0 { > description: "data interface" > disable: false > /* default-system-config */ > vif eth0 { > disable: false > address 172.17.0.10 { > prefix-length: 24 > broadcast: 172.17.0.255 > disable: false > } > } > } > > interface ath0 { > description: "data interface" > disable: false > /* default-system-config */ > vif ath0 { > disable: false > address 192.168.0.2 { > prefix-length: 24 > broadcast: 192.168.0.255 > disable: false > } > } > } > } > > plumbing { > mfea4 { > disable: false > interface eth0 { > vif eth0 { > disable: false > } > } > interface ath0 { > vif ath0 { > disable: false > } > } > interface register_vif { > vif register_vif { > disable: false > } > } > traceoptions { > flag all { > disable: false > } > } > } > } > > protocols { > igmp { > disable: false > interface eth0 { > vif eth0 { > disable: false > } > } > interface ath0 { > vif ath0 { > disable: false > } > } > traceoptions { > flag all { > disable: false > } > } > } > } > > protocols { > pimsm4 { > disable: false > interface eth0 { > vif eth0 { > disable: false > } > } > interface ath0 { > vif ath0 { > disable: false > } > } > interface register_vif { > vif register_vif { > /* Note: this vif should be always enabled */ > disable: false > } > } > > static-rps { > rp 172.17.0.10 { > group-prefix 224.0.0.0/4 { > /* rp-priority: 192 */ > /* hash-mask-len: 30 */ > } > } > } > > traceoptions { > flag all { > disable: false > } > } > } > } > > protocols { > fib2mrib { > disable: false > } > } > > > Regards, Sebastien. > > Pavlin Radoslavov a ?crit : > >> source------(R1)-------destination > >> > >> xorp is running on R1, pimsm, igmp, mfea4, fea and fib2mrib are enabled. > >> > >> I am using VLC to send a multicast traffic but nothing is forwarded to > >> the destination. > >> Everything seems to be good in the configuration and IGMP Membership > >> Reports and PIM Hello are received in the xorp log messages. > >> > >> R1 is the RP, is this a problem ? (I configured it statically) > >> Should I use another router for the RP ? I mean, as : > >> > >> source----(R1)------(R2=RP)-------destination > >> > > > > Static RP is fine and actually recommended for your setup. > > And no, there is no need for a second router. > > > > Two of the most frequent issues are: > > > > 1. Is the TTL of the sender's data traffic large enough? > > By default the TTL is 1 so the data traffic won't be forwarded. > > > > 2. Are there any firewall rules that might affect the multicast > > forwrading in any way (e.g., rules that filter the IGMP messages, > > etc). > > > > If the issue is not one of those two, then please send your XORP > > configuration and the output of the following xorpsh commands: > > > > show igmp group > > show pim join > > > > Regards, > > Pavlin > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xorp-users mailing list > Xorp-users at xorp.org > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users From alexandreozzi at virgilio.it Fri Dec 15 08:34:07 2006 From: alexandreozzi at virgilio.it (alexandreozzi at virgilio.it) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:34:07 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [Xorp-users] xorp performance Message-ID: <10f86f6a01f.alexandreozzi@virgilio.it> Dear all members. my name is Andreozzi Alessandro and I'm a student of engineering at the university of Rome "la sapienza".I am writing a thesis about the structure and about the performances of the software router, and particularly I am trying to analyze the performance of xorp. I'd want to ask to all the members if some publications have been already written about such topic, and if so, if you could send me a link where to download it (email: alexandreozzi at virgilio.it). Best regards. From pmancheno at gmail.com Sat Dec 16 10:27:53 2006 From: pmancheno at gmail.com (Pepo) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:27:53 -0500 Subject: [Xorp-users] Virtual interfaces in GNU/Linux Message-ID: <200612150209.04842.pmancheno@gmail.com> Hi friends... I am trying with Xorp for my multicast thesis and looks terrific :) my tests were using (just one) Debian Etch box and Qemu so I had a virtual network just like the image attached; but now I have to show my tests in a real network. For my real-test I will use normal computers and some others as routers with Xorp, but I have just one NIC in each PC, so, How do I can use virtual interfaces just like in a normal GNU/Linux. ifconfig ethN:X
(ifconfig eth0:1 192.168.1.1) Thanks. -- Linux User Registered #232544 Jabber : pepo at jabberes.org Ekiga : pepo at ekiga.net ICQ : 337889406 GnuPG-key : www.keyserver.net ---------------- ------------------------------- dum loquimur, fugerit invida aetas: carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: redLogica.png Type: image/png Size: 26698 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/pipermail/xorp-users/attachments/20061216/02541636/attachment-0002.bin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/pipermail/xorp-users/attachments/20061216/02541636/attachment-0003.bin From pavlin at icir.org Sun Dec 17 08:50:21 2006 From: pavlin at icir.org (Pavlin Radoslavov) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 08:50:21 -0800 Subject: [Xorp-users] Virtual interfaces in GNU/Linux In-Reply-To: Message from Pepo of "Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:27:53 EST." <200612150209.04842.pmancheno@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200612171650.kBHGoLU3046563@possum.icir.org> > I am trying with Xorp for my multicast thesis and looks terrific :) my tests > were using (just one) Debian Etch box and Qemu so I had a virtual network just > like the image attached; but now I have to show my tests in a real network. > > For my real-test I will use normal computers and some others as routers with > Xorp, but I have just one NIC in each PC, so, How do I can use virtual > interfaces just like in a normal GNU/Linux. > > ifconfig ethN:X
> (ifconfig eth0:1 192.168.1.1) First, you need to configure manually the virtual interfaces; i.e., in advance before starting XORP (in the future XORP should have support for configuring virtual interfaces). Then, inside the XORP configuration you use the virtual interfaces as any other (physical) interface. For example, if the interface names shown by "ifconfig -a" are eth0:1 and eth0:2, then your configuration might look like the one below. Though, double-check that eth0:1 and eth0:2 are indeed configured with IP addresses, they are multicast capable (the MULTICAST flag is set), and are UP. Please let us know if this setup is not working properly. Regards, Pavlin ================================================================ interfaces { interface eth0:1 { default-system-config } interface eth0:2 { default-system-config } } plumbing { mfea4 { interface eth0:1 { vif eth0:1 { disable: false } } interface eth0:2 { vif eth0:2 { disable: false } } interface register_vif { vif register_vif { disable: false } } } } protocols { igmp { interface eth0:1 { vif eth0:1 { disable: false } } interface eth0:2 { vif eth0:2 { disable: false } } } pimsm4 { interface eth0:1 { vif eth0:1 { disable: false } } interface eth0:2 { vif eth0:2 { disable: false } } interface register_vif { vif register_vif { disable: false } } static-rps { rp 10.0.0.1 { group-prefix 224.0.0.0/4 { } } } } fib2mrib { disable: false } } ================================================================ From sevinchess at yahoo.com Sun Dec 17 10:25:20 2006 From: sevinchess at yahoo.com (Soner Sevinç) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 10:25:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Xorp-users] BGP over NAT Message-ID: <20061217182520.14060.qmail@web60012.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, I have a problem in BGP. I try to run BGP over a NAT connection; the NAT-router tries to connect to an outside router. It manages to setup the TCP connection, it goes to OpenSent state. The other router goes to the OpenConfirm state. But they do not go to the Established state. It comes to me that BPG OPEN msg arrives at the second router (because it is in OpenConfirm), but msg doesn't arrive at the NAT-router. It is very difficult to understand for me; what can prevent a message to be delivered if there is a TCP connection in between? If TCP SYNC had passed, BGP OPEN should also pass. If anyone has an idea about the solution, I would be glad, thank you. Soner __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pmancheno at gmail.com Sun Dec 17 20:18:04 2006 From: pmancheno at gmail.com (Pepo) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:18:04 -0500 Subject: [Xorp-users] Virtual interfaces in GNU/Linux In-Reply-To: <200612171650.kBHGoLU3046563@possum.icir.org> References: <200612171650.kBHGoLU3046563@possum.icir.org> Message-ID: <200612172318.05056.pmancheno@gmail.com> El Domingo, 17 de Diciembre de 2006 11:50, escribi?: > > I am trying with Xorp for my multicast thesis and looks terrific :) my > > tests were using (just one) Debian Etch box and Qemu so I had a virtual > > network just like the image attached; but now I have to show my tests in > > a real network. > > > > For my real-test I will use normal computers and some others as routers > > with Xorp, but I have just one NIC in each PC, so, How do I can use > > virtual interfaces just like in a normal GNU/Linux. > > > > ifconfig ethN:X
> > (ifconfig eth0:1 192.168.1.1) > > First, you need to configure manually the virtual interfaces; i.e., > in advance before starting XORP (in the future XORP should have > support for configuring virtual interfaces). > > Then, inside the XORP configuration you use the virtual interfaces > as any other (physical) interface. For example, if the interface > names shown by "ifconfig -a" are eth0:1 and eth0:2, then your > configuration might look like the one below. > Though, double-check that eth0:1 and eth0:2 are indeed configured > with IP addresses, they are multicast capable (the MULTICAST flag is > set), and are UP. > > Please let us know if this setup is not working properly. > > Regards, > Pavlin > > ================================================================ > > interfaces { > interface eth0:1 { > default-system-config > } > interface eth0:2 { > default-system-config > } > } > > plumbing { > mfea4 { > interface eth0:1 { > vif eth0:1 { > disable: false > } > } > interface eth0:2 { > vif eth0:2 { > disable: false > } > } > interface register_vif { > vif register_vif { > disable: false > } > } > } > } > > protocols { > igmp { > interface eth0:1 { > vif eth0:1 { > disable: false > } > } > interface eth0:2 { > vif eth0:2 { > disable: false > } > } > } > > pimsm4 { > interface eth0:1 { > vif eth0:1 { > disable: false > } > } > interface eth0:2 { > vif eth0:2 { > disable: false > } > } > interface register_vif { > vif register_vif { > disable: false > } > } > > static-rps { > rp 10.0.0.1 { > group-prefix 224.0.0.0/4 { > } > } > } > } > > fib2mrib { > disable: false > } > } > > ================================================================ What if I use: interfaces { interface eth1 { disable: false vif eth1 { disable: false address 192.168.1.10 { prefix-length: 24 broadcast: 192.168.1.255 disable: false } address 192.168.13.1 { prefix-length: 24 broadcast: 192.168.13.255 disable: false } } } } plumbing { mfea4 { disable: false interface eth1 { vif eth1 { disable: false } } interface register_vif { vif register_vif { disable: false } } } } protocols { igmp { disable: false interface eth1 { vif eth1 { disable: false } } } pimsm4 { disable: false interface eth1 { vif eth1 { disable: true } } interface register_vif { vif register_vif { disable: false } } bootstrap { disable: false cand-bsr { scope-zone 224.0.0.0/4 { cand-bsr-by-vif-name: "eth1" } } } } } I mean just using differents IPs in the same NIC --> Do it works? efficient? In my virtual test I have a PC with 4 NICs, I dont if using 4 IPs is the same (efficient) of 4 NICs. -- Linux User Registered #232544 Jabber : pepo at jabberes.org Ekiga : pepo at ekiga.net ICQ : 337889406 GnuPG-key : www.keyserver.net ---------------- ------------------------------- dum loquimur, fugerit invida aetas: carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero. From pavlin at icir.org Sun Dec 17 20:32:30 2006 From: pavlin at icir.org (Pavlin Radoslavov) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:32:30 -0800 Subject: [Xorp-users] Virtual interfaces in GNU/Linux In-Reply-To: Message from Pepo of "Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:18:04 EST." <200612172318.05056.pmancheno@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200612180432.kBI4WUq4054413@possum.icir.org> Pepo wrote: > El Domingo, 17 de Diciembre de 2006 11:50, escribi?: > > > I am trying with Xorp for my multicast thesis and looks terrific :) my > > > tests were using (just one) Debian Etch box and Qemu so I had a virtual > > > network just like the image attached; but now I have to show my tests in > > > a real network. > > > > > > For my real-test I will use normal computers and some others as routers > > > with Xorp, but I have just one NIC in each PC, so, How do I can use > > > virtual interfaces just like in a normal GNU/Linux. > > > > > > ifconfig ethN:X
> > > (ifconfig eth0:1 192.168.1.1) > > > > First, you need to configure manually the virtual interfaces; i.e., > > in advance before starting XORP (in the future XORP should have > > support for configuring virtual interfaces). > > > > Then, inside the XORP configuration you use the virtual interfaces > > as any other (physical) interface. For example, if the interface > > names shown by "ifconfig -a" are eth0:1 and eth0:2, then your > > configuration might look like the one below. > > Though, double-check that eth0:1 and eth0:2 are indeed configured > > with IP addresses, they are multicast capable (the MULTICAST flag is > > set), and are UP. > > > > Please let us know if this setup is not working properly. > > > > Regards, > > Pavlin > > > > ================================================================ > > > > interfaces { > > interface eth0:1 { > > default-system-config > > } > > interface eth0:2 { > > default-system-config > > } > > } > > > > plumbing { > > mfea4 { > > interface eth0:1 { > > vif eth0:1 { > > disable: false > > } > > } > > interface eth0:2 { > > vif eth0:2 { > > disable: false > > } > > } > > interface register_vif { > > vif register_vif { > > disable: false > > } > > } > > } > > } > > > > protocols { > > igmp { > > interface eth0:1 { > > vif eth0:1 { > > disable: false > > } > > } > > interface eth0:2 { > > vif eth0:2 { > > disable: false > > } > > } > > } > > > > pimsm4 { > > interface eth0:1 { > > vif eth0:1 { > > disable: false > > } > > } > > interface eth0:2 { > > vif eth0:2 { > > disable: false > > } > > } > > interface register_vif { > > vif register_vif { > > disable: false > > } > > } > > > > static-rps { > > rp 10.0.0.1 { > > group-prefix 224.0.0.0/4 { > > } > > } > > } > > } > > > > fib2mrib { > > disable: false > > } > > } > > > > ================================================================ > > What if I use: > > interfaces { > interface eth1 { > disable: false > vif eth1 { > disable: false > address 192.168.1.10 { > prefix-length: 24 > broadcast: 192.168.1.255 > disable: false > } > address 192.168.13.1 { > prefix-length: 24 > broadcast: 192.168.13.255 > disable: false > } > } > } > } > > plumbing { > mfea4 { > disable: false > interface eth1 { > vif eth1 { > disable: false > } > } > interface register_vif { > vif register_vif { > disable: false > } > } > } > } > > protocols { > igmp { > disable: false > interface eth1 { > vif eth1 { > disable: false > } > } > } > pimsm4 { > disable: false > interface eth1 { > vif eth1 { > disable: true > } > } > interface register_vif { > vif register_vif { > disable: false > } > } > bootstrap { > disable: false > cand-bsr { > scope-zone 224.0.0.0/4 { > cand-bsr-by-vif-name: "eth1" > } > } > } > } > } > > I mean just using differents IPs in the same NIC --> Do it works? efficient? > > In my virtual test I have a PC with 4 NICs, I dont if using 4 IPs is the same > (efficient) of 4 NICs. Yes, the above setup is correct (modulo the fact you are missing the fib2mrib configuration), but you should have in mind that you actually have a single network interface with two IP addresses, and this is different from having virtual interfaces (your original question). Futhermore, you cannot perform multicast routing between two IP addresses that belong to the same network interface, otherwise the multicast data packets will start looping. Pavlin From pmancheno at gmail.com Sun Dec 17 21:11:30 2006 From: pmancheno at gmail.com (Pepo) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:11:30 -0500 Subject: [Xorp-users] Virtual interfaces in GNU/Linux In-Reply-To: <200612180427.kBI4R4ZD054284@possum.icir.org> References: <200612180427.kBI4R4ZD054284@possum.icir.org> Message-ID: <200612180011.31656.pmancheno@gmail.com> El Domingo, 17 de Diciembre de 2006 23:27, escribi?: > > El Domingo, 17 de Diciembre de 2006 11:50, escribi?: > > > > For my real-test I will use normal computers and some others as > > > > routers with Xorp, but I have just one NIC in each PC, so, How do I > > > > can use virtual interfaces just like in a normal GNU/Linux. > > > > > > > > ifconfig ethN:X
> > > > (ifconfig eth0:1 192.168.1.1) > > > > > > First, you need to configure manually the virtual interfaces; i.e., > > > in advance before starting XORP (in the future XORP should have > > > support for configuring virtual interfaces). > > > > > > Then, inside the XORP configuration you use the virtual interfaces > > > as any other (physical) interface. For example, if the interface > > > names shown by "ifconfig -a" are eth0:1 and eth0:2, then your > > > configuration might look like the one below. > > > Though, double-check that eth0:1 and eth0:2 are indeed configured > > > with IP addresses, they are multicast capable (the MULTICAST flag is > > > set), and are UP. > > > > > > Please let us know if this setup is not working properly. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Pavlin > > > > > > ================================================================ > > > > > > interfaces { > > > interface eth0:1 { > > > default-system-config > > > } > > > interface eth0:2 { > > > default-system-config > > > } > > > } > > > > > > .../... > > > > > > ================================================================ > > > > Lamentably it didn't work; I config /etc/network/interfaces (is the same > > using commands -> ifconfig eth1 192.168.1.10 ... ifconfig eth1:1 > > 192.168.13.1): > > =================/etc/network/interfaces============================ auto > > lo > > iface lo inet loopback > > > > auto eth1 > > iface eth1 inet static > > address 192.168.1.10 > > netmask 255.255.255.0 > > network 192.168.1.0 > > broadcast 192.168.1.255 > > > > auto eth1:1 > > iface eth1:1 inet static > > address 192.168.13.1 > > netmask 255.255.255.0 > > network 192.168.13.0 > > broadcast 192.168.13.255 > > ================================================================ > > > > Later my xorp config file: > > ============================router.cis=========================== > > interfaces { > > interface eth1{ > > default-system-config > > } > > interface eth1:1 { > > default-system-config > > } > > } > > .../... > > ================================================================ > > > > And get this error message: > > > > [ 2006/12/17 22:34:38 ERROR xorp_rtrmgr:3523 RTRMGR +330 main_rtrmgr.cc > > run ] rtrmgr shutting down due to an init error: PARSE ERROR [Config File > > router.cis, line 5]: syntax error; Last symbol parsed was "eth1" > > What is the output of the Linux command "ip addr" before starting > XORP? > > It appears to me that the setup inside /etc/network/interfaces is > used to assign multiple IP addresses per interface, which is > different from configuring virtual interfaces. > > Pavlin The output using ip addr is: 1: lo: mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo inet6 ::1/128 scope host valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 2: eth1: mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000 link/ether 52:54:00:12:34:86 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 192.168.1.10/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global eth1 inet 192.168.13.1/24 brd 192.168.13.255 scope global eth1:1 inet6 fe80::5054:ff:fe12:3486/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 3: sit0: mtu 1480 qdisc noop link/sit 0.0.0.0 brd 0.0.0.0 What do you think? From pavlin at icir.org Mon Dec 18 00:29:59 2006 From: pavlin at icir.org (Pavlin Radoslavov) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:29:59 -0800 Subject: [Xorp-users] Virtual interfaces in GNU/Linux In-Reply-To: Message from Pepo of "Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:11:30 EST." <200612180011.31656.pmancheno@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200612180829.kBI8TxGj055932@possum.icir.org> > The output using ip addr is: > > 1: lo: mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue > link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 > inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo > inet6 ::1/128 scope host > valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever > 2: eth1: mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000 > link/ether 52:54:00:12:34:86 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff > inet 192.168.1.10/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global eth1 > inet 192.168.13.1/24 brd 192.168.13.255 scope global eth1:1 > inet6 fe80::5054:ff:fe12:3486/64 scope link > valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever > 3: sit0: mtu 1480 qdisc noop > link/sit 0.0.0.0 brd 0.0.0.0 > > What do you think? You have a single network interface (eth1) with two IP addresses. For multicast routing purpose, this counts as a single interface. If you have the limitation of only one physical network interface, but you want to have a multicast router with several network interfaces, then you need to create virtual interfaces/tunnels such as GRE tunnels, OpenVPN tunnels, VLANs, etc. If you don't have much experience with tunnels setup, I'd recommend to start with OpenVPN (http://openvpn.net/). It is quite portable and easy to configure. E.g., you could just run a pair of commands like the following on both sides of a tunnel: openvpn --local 10.6.0.2 --remote 10.9.0.2 --ifconfig 30.30.30.1 30.30.30.2 --dev tun0 openvpn --local 10.9.0.2 --remote 10.6.0.2 --ifconfig 30.30.30.2 30.30.30.1 --dev tun0 FYI, you could use openvpn even across a NAT because it is TCP/UDP based. After that you need to use the virtual tun0 interface as one of the interfaces on the XORP router. Regards, Pavlin From pmancheno at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 23:08:54 2006 From: pmancheno at gmail.com (Pepo) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 02:08:54 -0500 Subject: [Xorp-users] Virtual interfaces in GNU/Linux Message-ID: <200612150209.04842.pmancheno@gmail.com> Hi friends... I am trying with Xorp for my multicast thesis and looks terrific :) my tests was using (just one) Debian Etch box and Qemu so I had a virtual network just like the image attached; but now I have to show my tests in a real network. For my real-test I will use normal computers and some others as routers with Xorp, but I have just one NIC in each PC, so, How do I can use virtual interfaces just like in a normal GNU/Linux. ifconfig ethN:X
(ifconfig eth0:1 192.168.1.1) Thanks. -- Linux User Registered #232544 Jabber : pepo at jabberes.org Ekiga : pepo at ekiga.net ICQ : 337889406 GnuPG-key : www.keyserver.net ---------------- ------------------------------- dum loquimur, fugerit invida aetas: carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: redLogica.png Type: image/png Size: 58210 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/pipermail/xorp-users/attachments/20061215/02541636/attachment-0002.bin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/pipermail/xorp-users/attachments/20061215/02541636/attachment-0003.bin From pmancheno at gmail.com Sun Dec 17 20:02:44 2006 From: pmancheno at gmail.com (Pepo) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:02:44 -0500 Subject: [Xorp-users] Virtual interfaces in GNU/Linux In-Reply-To: <200612171650.kBHGoLU3046563@possum.icir.org> References: <200612171650.kBHGoLU3046563@possum.icir.org> Message-ID: <200612172302.45260.pmancheno@gmail.com> El Domingo, 17 de Diciembre de 2006 11:50, escribi?: > > For my real-test I will use normal computers and some others as routers > > with Xorp, but I have just one NIC in each PC, so, How do I can use > > virtual interfaces just like in a normal GNU/Linux. > > > > ifconfig ethN:X
> > (ifconfig eth0:1 192.168.1.1) > > First, you need to configure manually the virtual interfaces; i.e., > in advance before starting XORP (in the future XORP should have > support for configuring virtual interfaces). > > Then, inside the XORP configuration you use the virtual interfaces > as any other (physical) interface. For example, if the interface > names shown by "ifconfig -a" are eth0:1 and eth0:2, then your > configuration might look like the one below. > Though, double-check that eth0:1 and eth0:2 are indeed configured > with IP addresses, they are multicast capable (the MULTICAST flag is > set), and are UP. > > Please let us know if this setup is not working properly. > > Regards, > Pavlin > > ================================================================ > > interfaces { > interface eth0:1 { > default-system-config > } > interface eth0:2 { > default-system-config > } > } > > .../... > > ================================================================ Lamentably it didn't work; I config /etc/network/interfaces (is the same using commands -> ifconfig eth1 192.168.1.10 ... ifconfig eth1:1 192.168.13.1): =================/etc/network/interfaces============================ auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth1 iface eth1 inet static address 192.168.1.10 netmask 255.255.255.0 network 192.168.1.0 broadcast 192.168.1.255 auto eth1:1 iface eth1:1 inet static address 192.168.13.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 network 192.168.13.0 broadcast 192.168.13.255 ================================================================ Later my xorp config file: ============================router.cis=========================== interfaces { interface eth1{ default-system-config } interface eth1:1 { default-system-config } } .../... ================================================================ And get this error message: [ 2006/12/17 22:34:38 ERROR xorp_rtrmgr:3523 RTRMGR +330 main_rtrmgr.cc run ] rtrmgr shutting down due to an init error: PARSE ERROR [Config File router.cis, line 5]: syntax error; Last symbol parsed was "eth1" Please help me. From admin2 at enabled.com Thu Dec 21 23:43:33 2006 From: admin2 at enabled.com (Noah) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:43:33 -0800 Subject: [Xorp-users] /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lstdc++_p building xorp from /usr/ports Message-ID: <458B8CA5.50605@enabled.com> Hi there, I am attempting to build xorp-1.3_1 from FreeBSD /usr/ports and arriving at a peculiar error - stdc++ libs are in /usr/lib so i am unclear why there is a complaint during the build of not finding '-lstdc++_p' hopefully relevant output is below including the dump from the failed make. # echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH /usr/lib # find / -name "libstdc++"\* /usr/lib/libstdc++.a /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.4 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so /usr/local/lib/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd5.5/3.4.6/libstdc++.so.6 /usr/local/lib/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd5.5/3.4.6/libstdc++.so /usr/local/lib/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd5.5/3.4.6/libstdc++.a /usr/local/lib/gcc-4.2.0/libstdc++.so.6 /usr/local/lib/gcc-4.2.0/libstdc++.so /usr/local/lib/gcc-4.2.0/libstdc++.a /usr/src/contrib/libstdc++ /usr/src/gnu/lib/libstdc++ /usr/src/lib/compat/compat22/libstdc++.so.2.0.gz.uu /usr/src/lib/compat/compat3x.i386/libstdc++.so.2.gz.uu /usr/src/lib/compat/compat4x.alpha/libstdc++.so.3.bz2.uu /usr/src/lib/compat/compat4x.i386/libstdc++.so.3.bz2.uu ---- make fail --- # make install clean ===> Building for xorp-1.3_1 gmake all-recursive gmake[1]: Entering directory `/usr/ports/net/xorp/work/xorp-1.3' Making all in libxorp gmake[2]: Entering directory `/usr/ports/net/xorp/work/xorp-1.3/libxorp' gmake all-am gmake[3]: Entering directory `/usr/ports/net/xorp/work/xorp-1.3/libxorp' gmake[3]: Nothing to be done for `all-am'. gmake[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/net/xorp/work/xorp-1.3/libxorp' gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/net/xorp/work/xorp-1.3/libxorp' Making all in libcomm gmake[2]: Entering directory `/usr/ports/net/xorp/work/xorp-1.3/libcomm' gmake[2]: Nothing to be done for `all'. gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/net/xorp/work/xorp-1.3/libcomm' Making all in libxipc gmake[2]: Entering directory `/usr/ports/net/xorp/work/xorp-1.3/libxipc' /bin/sh ../libtool --mode=link c++ -Wno-uninitialized -g -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Werror -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align -Woverloaded-virtual -ftemplate-depth-25 -pg -o xorp_finder finder_main.o libfinder.la ./libxipc.la ../libxorp/libxorp.la ../libcomm/libcomm.la -lcrypto c++ -Wno-uninitialized -g -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Werror -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align -Woverloaded-virtual -ftemplate-depth-25 -pg -o xorp_finder finder_main.o ./.libs/libfinder.al ./.libs/libxipc.al ../libxorp/.libs/libxorp.al ../libcomm/.libs/libcomm.al -lcrypto /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lstdc++_p gmake[2]: *** [xorp_finder] Error 1 gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/net/xorp/work/xorp-1.3/libxipc' gmake[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/net/xorp/work/xorp-1.3' gmake: *** [all] Error 2 *** Error code 2 Stop in /usr/ports/net/xorp. From pavlin at icir.org Fri Dec 22 11:30:05 2006 From: pavlin at icir.org (Pavlin Radoslavov) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:30:05 -0800 Subject: [Xorp-users] /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lstdc++_p building xorp from /usr/ports In-Reply-To: Message from Noah of "Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:43:33 PST." <458B8CA5.50605@enabled.com> Message-ID: <200612221930.kBMJU5Vi019645@possum.icir.org> > I am attempting to build xorp-1.3_1 from FreeBSD /usr/ports > and arriving at a peculiar error - stdc++ libs are in /usr/lib > so i am unclear why there is a complaint during the build of not > finding '-lstdc++_p' > hopefully relevant output is below including the dump from the failed make. What FreeBSD version are you using? I found /usr/lib/libstdc++_p.a on FreeBSD-4.10, FreeBSD-6.1 (amd64) and FreeBSD-RC1, so it should be in the system. Probably it got removed somehow. You might want to contact the FreeBSD folks for help how to recover it. Another thing to try is to download the vanilla XORP source code and try to compile it by hand (and hope the compilation won't try use the missing libstdc++_p library). Regards, Pavlin > > # echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH > /usr/lib > > # find / -name "libstdc++"\* > /usr/lib/libstdc++.a > /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.4 > /usr/lib/libstdc++.so > /usr/local/lib/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd5.5/3.4.6/libstdc++.so.6 > /usr/local/lib/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd5.5/3.4.6/libstdc++.so > /usr/local/lib/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd5.5/3.4.6/libstdc++.a > /usr/local/lib/gcc-4.2.0/libstdc++.so.6 > /usr/local/lib/gcc-4.2.0/libstdc++.so > /usr/local/lib/gcc-4.2.0/libstdc++.a > /usr/src/contrib/libstdc++ > /usr/src/gnu/lib/libstdc++ > /usr/src/lib/compat/compat22/libstdc++.so.2.0.gz.uu > /usr/src/lib/compat/compat3x.i386/libstdc++.so.2.gz.uu > /usr/src/lib/compat/compat4x.alpha/libstdc++.so.3.bz2.uu > /usr/src/lib/compat/compat4x.i386/libstdc++.so.3.bz2.uu > > > > > ---- make fail --- > > # make install clean > ===> Building for xorp-1.3_1 > gmake all-recursive > gmake[1]: Entering directory `/usr/ports/net/xorp/work/xorp-1.3' > Making all in libxorp > gmake[2]: Entering directory `/usr/ports/net/xorp/work/xorp-1.3/libxorp' > gmake all-am > gmake[3]: Entering directory `/usr/ports/net/xorp/work/xorp-1.3/libxorp' > gmake[3]: Nothing to be done for `all-am'. > gmake[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/net/xorp/work/xorp-1.3/libxorp' > gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/net/xorp/work/xorp-1.3/libxorp' > Making all in libcomm > gmake[2]: Entering directory `/usr/ports/net/xorp/work/xorp-1.3/libcomm' > gmake[2]: Nothing to be done for `all'. > gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/net/xorp/work/xorp-1.3/libcomm' > Making all in libxipc > gmake[2]: Entering directory `/usr/ports/net/xorp/work/xorp-1.3/libxipc' > /bin/sh ../libtool --mode=link c++ -Wno-uninitialized -g -W -Wall > -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Werror -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align > -Woverloaded-virtual -ftemplate-depth-25 -pg -o xorp_finder > finder_main.o libfinder.la ./libxipc.la ../libxorp/libxorp.la > ../libcomm/libcomm.la -lcrypto > c++ -Wno-uninitialized -g -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Werror > -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align -Woverloaded-virtual -ftemplate-depth-25 > -pg -o xorp_finder finder_main.o ./.libs/libfinder.al > ./.libs/libxipc.al ../libxorp/.libs/libxorp.al > ../libcomm/.libs/libcomm.al -lcrypto > /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lstdc++_p > gmake[2]: *** [xorp_finder] Error 1 > gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/net/xorp/work/xorp-1.3/libxipc' > gmake[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 > gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/ports/net/xorp/work/xorp-1.3' > gmake: *** [all] Error 2 > *** Error code 2 > > Stop in /usr/ports/net/xorp. > > _______________________________________________ > Xorp-users mailing list > Xorp-users at xorp.org > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users From dan at obluda.cz Fri Dec 22 11:47:24 2006 From: dan at obluda.cz (Dan Lukes) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 20:47:24 +0100 Subject: [Xorp-users] /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lstdc++_p building xorp from /usr/ports In-Reply-To: <200612221930.kBMJU5Vi019645@possum.icir.org> References: <200612221930.kBMJU5Vi019645@possum.icir.org> Message-ID: <458C364C.8080109@obluda.cz> >> /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lstdc++_p Pavlin Radoslavov wrote: > I found /usr/lib/libstdc++_p.a on FreeBSD-4.10, FreeBSD-6.1 (amd64) > and FreeBSD-RC1, so it should be in the system. _p (e.g. libraries with profiling informations ) are not mandatory part of FreeBSD system. It may or may not be installed as they are dedicated for development but not for regular use. If the profiling should be used, then this variant of libraries need to be installed first. Even if the libraries are present in the system, it's version needs to be verified before first use - they may be ancient if installed during initial OS installation but not updated during later OS update. Dan