option FIB_ALGO and dpdk_lpm4

[Marek Zarychta]

W dniu 09.02.2021 o 00:35, Alexander V. Chernikov pisze:
> 08.02.2021, 20:10, "Marek Zarychta" <zarychtam at plan-b.pwste.edu.pl>:
>> W dniu 08.02.2021 o 19:32, Alexander V. Chernikov pisze:
>>>   08.02.2021, 14:33, "Marek Zarychta" <zarychtam at plan-b.pwste.edu.pl>:
>>>>   W dniu 08.02.2021 o 13:10, mike tancsa pisze:
>>>>>    I have been setting up some tests to see if
>>>>>
>>>>>    option FIB_ALGO and dpdk_lpm4.ko
>>>>>
>>>>>    will help with my pkt forwarding needs and large routing tables. So far so good. But one thing I noticed, is that its very chatty to dmesg.
>>>>>    eg
>>>>>    alloc_nhgrp: new mpath group: num_nhops: 2
>>>>>    compile_nhgrp: O: 2/2
>>>>>    compile_nhgrp: OO[0]: 1/1 curr=1 slot_idx=0
>>>>>    compile_nhgrp: OO[1]: 0/0 curr=1 slot_idx=1
>>>>>    alloc_nhgrp: new mpath group: num_nhops: 2
>>>>>    compile_nhgrp: O: 2/2
>>>>>    compile_nhgrp: OO[0]: 1/1 curr=1 slot_idx=0
>>>>>    compile_nhgrp: OO[1]: 0/0 curr=1 slot_idx=1
>>>>>    alloc_nhgrp: new mpath group: num_nhops: 2
>>>>>    compile_nhgrp: O: 2/2
>>>>>    compile_nhgrp: OO[0]: 1/1 curr=1 slot_idx=0
>>>>>    compile_nhgrp: OO[1]: 0/0 curr=1 slot_idx=1
>>>>>
>>>>>    are these debugging messages that forgot to be turned off ? What do they mean ?
>>>>>    Thanks for this work!
>>>>>
>>>>>    13.0-STABLE #11 stable/13-cc1352c1f-dirty
>>>>   Thank you for sharing this Mike. Could you please reveal us how do you
>>>>   feed your routing tables? Is net/bird{,2} or net/frr7 involved? Any
>>>>   problems or hints to make the routing daemon working with new routing stack?
>>>   Non-multipath should work as before, multipath works for quagga/frr but needs some patches for bird.
>> Thank you for the clarification, so is with anything but quagga or frr
>> the sysctl setting net.route.multipath=0 obligatory now?
>>>>   The new routing stack looks very promising, please let me also give this
>>>>   way some appreciations to melifaro@ and other people who worked on it.
>>>>
>>>>   I was also trying to test it with legacy net/bird and multiple fib
>>>>   tables, but I was early hit by: "KRT: Error sending route x.x.x.x/y to
>>>>   kernel: Operation not supported"
>>>   Any chance you could clarify what are these routes? "Operation not supported" looks a bit weird, it shouln't happen.
>>>>   Setting net.add_net.add_addr_allfibs=1addr_allfibs=1 changed it a bit,
>>>>   but still some blackhole /32 routes seem to get rejected.
>>>   Just "blackhole" route in the bird config? /32 or all?
>> I used for tests the feed from Peter Hessler's OpenBSD spam trapping
>> project[1]. On FreeBSD 11.4 I see these routes in net/bird as
>> blackholed, for example:
>> x.x.x.x/32 blackhole [bgp_spamd 20:20:43 from y.y.y.y] * (100) [ASzzzz]
>> They work the same was as routes added by route(8) with option "-blackhole"
>>
>> With new routing stack, these routes are rejected with the message
>> above. Now in net/bird, they appear like the example below and import to
>> the fib (fib number is not equal to 0 in this case) is blocked:
>> x.x.x.x/32 unreachable [SPAM 19:58:18 from y.y.y.y] ! (100/-) [ASzzzz]
> Does the change in https://reviews.freebsd.org/D28549 fix bird?

Thank you for the fix. It solves the issue for net/bird.

So it's probably time to push it a bit further and test in a production 
environment.

>> Probably it all should be tested in normal peering, but my initial test
>> was performed on the old lab setup where multiple fibs and policy
>> routing[2] were involved. The config was loosely based on the example by
>> Ondrej Filip from the[2].
>>
>> Once again thank you for implementing all these improvements into
>> FreeBSD routing stack and please don't get me wrong, I am just testing
>> it a bit before migration from 11.4-STABLE, but not complaining about
>> anything.
> No problem! Thank you for the report. It's really nice it's been caught before the release.
>> [1] http://rs.bgp-spamd.net/client/index.html
>> [2] https://gitlab.nic.cz/labs/bird/-/wikis/Policy_routing
>>

-- 
Marek Zarychta