From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57FC01FF135 for ; Sun, 17 May 2026 02:02:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1343933B8C; Sun, 17 May 2026 02:02:43 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Lamprecht To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Gabriel Goller Subject: Re: [PATCH frr 0/2] Fix leaked EVPN routes having wrong nexthop on IPv4 via IPv6 routes Date: Sun, 17 May 2026 01:59:44 +0200 Message-ID: <177897588452.770468.5372557993508508653.b4-ty@b4> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20260515152400.726794-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> References: <20260515152400.726794-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1778976115745 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.004 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: HQERFQS7ZKRCWR6TVNSURYW6WG2NLPT4 X-Message-ID-Hash: HQERFQS7ZKRCWR6TVNSURYW6WG2NLPT4 X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Fri, 15 May 2026 17:23:55 +0200, Gabriel Goller wrote: > When we have a EVPN fabric with IPv6 VTEPs and leak them into the default > routing table (or any other VRF) (via exit-nodes in our case) the nexthop is > wrong. The nexthop is correct in the vrf (e.g. `ip route show vrf vrf_evpn`) but > the import-vrf does not correctly check the BGP MP properties for the IPv6 > nexthop and inserts a invalid (0.0.0.0) IPv4 nexthop. The BGP MP properties are > not checked because a legacy bgp flag is set (BGP_ATTR_NEXT_HOP), which > circumvents the BGP MP check. > > [...] Smoke-Tested in a peer-to-peer EVPN setup over an IPv6 underlay: a type-3 route from a v6 VTEP propagates to the peer with the v6 nexthop preserved, looked all ok and improves the stats quo, so after some longer consideration: Applied, thanks! [1/2] frr: backport #21166 and #21958, fixing EVPN IPv4 routes with IPv6 nexhtop commit: 1e04e21152138c90ba9c612707a95c5fb48cf9d6 [2/2] bump to version 10.6.1-1+pve2 commit: 9f188e1b4459edfd6174aa1ad48ee4ab6bde7749