[Xorp-users] Problem adding routes to custom devices

[Ben Greear]

On 05/20/2010 07:35 AM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> On 05/19/2010 06:04 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
>>> I have a suspicion as to what may be wrong...here's the relevant output
>>> of "ip link":
>>>
>>> 4: eth0.801 at eth0:<BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc
>>> noqueue
>>> link/ether 00:50:56:9e:1f:7f brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
>>> 6: abcd0:<BROADCAST,MULTICAST,NOARP,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc
>>> pfifo_fast qlen 100
>>> link/void 00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00 brd
>>> ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00
>>> 7: pimreg at NONE:<NOARP,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1472 qdisc noqueue
>>> link/pimreg
>>>
>>> Note the type of "link/void" -- is it possible that XORP refuses to set
>>> routes pertaining to this link because of the link type, even though it
>>> will give the interface an IP address? If so, is there a way to disable
>>> this/fix this/prevent this? Or any other idea what's going wrong?
>>
>> I'd say that's likely. Can you just fix your network driver so that
>> it claims to be Ethernet? That's what other virtual drivers, such as
>> 'veth'
>> do...
>
>  From what I hear, the answer is "maybe" -- in that they do have that
> option but it's not working right :-(
>
> One thing the guys here told me is that void is a legit link type in the
> kernel with a configurable link layer address size. The address size
> above is 128-bit; however from poking around at the XORP source code it
> seems that it makes assumptions all over the place that the link layer
> addresses are 48 bit.

Patches to make that code more flexible are welcome :)

> I actually compared logs from running with a normal interface vs. our
> custom interface and they were basically identical.
>
> I did see this:
>
> [ 2010/05/19 17:19:21.86898 INFO xorp:3702 RTRMGR
> rtrmgr/module_manager.cc:94 execute ] Executing module: static_routes
> (xorp_static_routes)
>
> [ 2010/05/19 17:19:21.98138 WARNING xorp:3702 XrlFinderTarget
> obj/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/xrl/targets/finder_base.cc:482
> handle_finder_0_2_resolve_xrl ] Handling method for
> finder/0.2/resolve_xrl failed: XrlCmdError 102 Command failed Target
> "static_routes" does not exist or is not enabled.

I don't know exactly why these log messages appear, but they have always
been there as far as I know, and doesn't seem to cause any harm.

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com