Community discussions

 
User avatar
dibatech
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:14 am

OSPFv3 received routes not in routing table

Tue Jun 06, 2017 3:12 pm

Ok. so deploying some IPv6 over a few routers and getting OSPFv3 going.
Versions tested on: CCR 6.37.5 and 6.38.5

Steps followed on each router:
1. Add loopback bridge.
2. Add mac-address to loopback bridge (Unique to each bridge) example: 01:00:00:00:01:BB
3. Added /64 v6 ip to loopback bridge. Each router with own loopback bridge on separate /64 example: xxxx:xxx:1:2::1/64, xxxx:xxx:1:3::1/64
4. Added the point to point IPv6 subnets between routers. (Tried with /127, /126 and /64's same result)
/routing ospf-v3 instance
set [ find default=yes ] redistribute-connected=as-type-1 redistribute-static=as-type-1 router-id=xxx.xxx.216.67
/routing ospf-v3 interface
add area=backbone  interface=bonding-core1 network-type=point-to-point
add area=backbone interface=bonding-core2 network-type=point-to-point
add area=backbone interface=ether2 network-type=point-to-point
add area=backbone interface=loopback network-type=point-to-point passive=yes
/routing ospf-v3 route print, all expected routes shows up correctly.
These routes never ends up in IPv6 routing table as expected with correct Gateway (fe80:: type though), interface, cost and states.

These routes never ends up in the IPv6 Routing table.
Pinging various loopback interfaces does not work. If static routes are added, icmp works.
No firewall rules, ipv4 or 6

IPv6 BGP routes does work and shows up in IPv6 routing table.
Any ideas??

Kind regards and thank you for your time.
 
User avatar
blackmesawireless
just joined
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2014 8:38 pm

Re: OSPFv3 received routes not in routing table

Wed Jun 07, 2017 5:15 am

We are seeing this problem on RB1100AHx2es with 6.38.3 and 6.38.5.

Update: Even upgrading to the latest 6.39.2 does not resolve this issue, but only on RB1100AHx2 routers. Other routers (including other PowerPC routers like 850Gx2) are not exhibiting this problem.

Anything else that might cause this problem in the configuration would be useful to know but it seems like a bug on RB1100AHx2s.

What routers are you using OP?
 
User avatar
IPANetEngineer
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 1053
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:46 am
Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Contact:

Re: OSPFv3 received routes not in routing table

Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:00 pm

That's an interesting point, have you tried replicating the topology with CHRs in a virtual environment like GNS3? it would be interesting to see if it works there
Global - MikroTik Support & Consulting - English | Francais | Español | Portuguese +1 855-645-7684
https://iparchitechs.com/services/mikro ... l-support/ mikrotiksupport@iparchitechs.com
 
User avatar
blackmesawireless
just joined
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2014 8:38 pm

Re: OSPFv3 received routes not in routing table

Wed Jun 07, 2017 5:11 pm

There's no ospfv3 route filtering in ros v6 so the routes should just populate into the table AFAIK. Seems like it has to be a bug.
 
User avatar
blackmesawireless
just joined
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2014 8:38 pm

Re: OSPFv3 received routes not in routing table

Wed Jun 07, 2017 5:22 pm

Problem solved for me. Route filtering DOES apply using the default ospf-in filter chain. Not sure if it uses the regular ospf filter chain setting or a hidden default.

Adding a filter to accept the routes in the routing filter chain ospf-in fixed it.
 
User avatar
dibatech
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:14 am

Re: OSPFv3 received routes not in routing table

Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:24 pm

@blackmesawireless
Yup. Solved. As, you said, OSPFv3 uses default OSPF-IN/OUT.

This is supposed not to work, but yes, filters does seem to work with IPv6.
Thanx man.
 
User avatar
blackmesawireless
just joined
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2014 8:38 pm

Re: OSPFv3 received routes not in routing table

Wed Jun 07, 2017 7:03 pm

@blackmesawireless
This is supposed not to work, but yes, filters does seem to work with IPv6.
Thanx man.
Glad I could help. For once what seemed to be a bug truly is an undocumented feature! Ha!
 
User avatar
IPANetEngineer
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 1053
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:46 am
Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Contact:

Re: OSPFv3 received routes not in routing table

Thu Jun 08, 2017 4:47 pm

Good find...thanks for the info!
Global - MikroTik Support & Consulting - English | Francais | Español | Portuguese +1 855-645-7684
https://iparchitechs.com/services/mikro ... l-support/ mikrotiksupport@iparchitechs.com
 
idlemind
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:15 pm
Location: USA

Re: OSPFv3 received routes not in routing table

Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:36 am

In addition, I'd recommend dropping the /64's from your loopbacks. I know IPv6 = all addresses are free now but still...

Personally I use /128 for loopbacks (like /32 w/IPv4) and /126 (like /30 w/IPv4) for point-to-points. It's easier for me to relate and definitely stresses a large network plan a lot less. I chose not to use /127 as I could find less evidence that it as widely supported (similar to /31's). That and I like my even numbers, it calms my OCD.

Also, mac sure your loopback bridges have MAC addresses. A generous and intelligent user helped me figure this out when I got my first RouterBoard.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=121263#p596222
 
Lonecrow
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:58 am

Re: OSPFv3 received routes not in routing table

Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:00 pm

What is the point of the loopback bridge? Anyone have link to docs on this?
 
User avatar
blackmesawireless
just joined
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2014 8:38 pm

Re: OSPFv3 received routes not in routing table

Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:08 pm

Look up "OSPF" and "loopback"

BTW while /128s are considered OK for loopbacks, it's currently recommended to allocate an entire /64 for PtP links, even if you only assign it as a smaller subnet. IPv6 assumes an interface will have 64 host bits under most circumstances.
 
Lonecrow
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:58 am

Re: OSPFv3 received routes not in routing table

Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:46 pm

"No, it is not necessary, but it is recommended." - Mikrotik Employee

I was just wondering because I've had it working without one. But I do see the benefits now in a bigger environment.
 
User avatar
blackmesawireless
just joined
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2014 8:38 pm

Re: OSPFv3 received routes not in routing table

Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:20 pm

I was just wondering because I've had it working without one. But I do see the benefits now in a bigger environment.
Yes, when you have a site with several different links out in an OSPF network, you really need a stable address for things like VPLS connections and (if you use it) iBGP. The loopback gives you that.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests