FRR on Linux do not redistribute default route between instances

[oldafn]

When linux box (without locally set default route) running two instances of OSPF, learn default route from one of them, default route isn't pass to second one although default-information originate is specified.

I experienced this on version frr-9.0-01.el8.x86_64 and frr-8.5.2-02.el8.x86_64 from frr repository running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.7 (kernel 4.18.0-425.13.1.el8_7.x86_64)

Current configuration: ! frr version 9.0 frr defaults traditional hostname inline-vMSP-0 no ipv6 forwarding no service integrated-vtysh-config ! interface bond0 ip ospf 3 area 1 exit ! interface bond2 ip ospf 6 area 0 exit ! router ospf 3 redistribute ospf 6 exit ! router ospf 6 redistribute ospf 3 default-information originate exit !

OSPF database: OSPF Instance: 3

   OSPF Router with ID (192.168.45.225)

            Router Link States (Area 0.0.0.1)

Link ID ADV Router Age Seq# CkSum Link count 192.168.45.92 192.168.45.92 234 0x8000000d 0xf27d 1 192.168.45.225 192.168.45.225 228 0x8000000b 0xebf5 1

            Net Link States (Area 0.0.0.1)

Link ID ADV Router Age Seq# CkSum 192.168.45.92 192.168.45.92 234 0x80000009 0x53ad

            AS External Link States

Link ID ADV Router Age Seq# CkSum Route 0.0.0.0 192.168.45.92 2 0x80000004 0x3c01 E2 0.0.0.0/0 [0x0]

OSPF Instance: 6

   OSPF Router with ID (192.168.45.225)

            Router Link States (Area 0.0.0.0)

Link ID ADV Router Age Seq# CkSum Link count 192.168.17.189 192.168.17.189 124 0x80000007 0xaa62 1 192.168.45.225 192.168.45.225 124 0x80000007 0xab7f 1

            Net Link States (Area 0.0.0.0)

Link ID ADV Router Age Seq# CkSum 192.168.17.29 192.168.45.225 124 0x80000004 0xb9dc

OSPF neighbors: (192.168.45.92 propagate default route, 192.168.17.189 is expecting to get it but isn't) OSPF Instance: 3

Neighbor ID Pri State Up Time Dead Time Address Interface RXmtL RqstL DBsmL 192.168.45.92 1 Full/DR 5m48s 31.517s 192.168.45.92 bond0:192.168.45.225 0 0 0

OSPF Instance: 6

Neighbor ID Pri State Up Time Dead Time Address Interface RXmtL RqstL DBsmL 192.168.17.189 1 Full/Backup 3m24s 31.712s 192.168.17.189 bond2:192.168.17.29 0 0 0

OSPF routes: (note that defalt route learned from neigbor 192.168.45.92 was correctly installed into kernel) OSPF Instance: 3

============ OSPF network routing table ============ N 192.168.45.0/24 [10] area: 0.0.0.1 directly attached to bond0

============ OSPF router routing table ============= R 192.168.45.92 [10] area: 0.0.0.1, ASBR via 192.168.45.92, bond0

============ OSPF external routing table =========== N E2 0.0.0.0/0 [10/10] tag: 0 via 192.168.45.254, bond0

OSPF Instance: 6

============ OSPF network routing table ============ N 192.168.17.0/24 [1] area: 0.0.0.0 directly attached to bond2

============ OSPF router routing table =============

============ OSPF external routing table ===========

Local routes: (note that there must not be any local default route to replicate the issue) Codes: K - kernel route, C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, O - OSPF, I - IS-IS, B - BGP, E - EIGRP, N - NHRP, T - Table, A - Babel, F - PBR, f - OpenFabric,

• selected route, * - FIB route, q - queued, r - rejected, b - backup t - trapped, o - offload failure

O[3]> 0.0.0.0/0 [110/10] via 192.168.45.254, bond0, weight 1, 00:08:43 C> 172.19.0.0/16 is directly connected, bond1, 02:11:37 O[6] 192.168.17.0/24 [110/1] is directly connected, bond2, weight 1, 00:09:00 C> 192.168.17.0/24 is directly connected, bond2, 02:11:37 O[3] 192.168.45.0/24 [110/10] is directly connected, bond0, weight 1, 00:09:00 C> 192.168.45.0/24 is directly connected, bond0, 02:11:37 K>* 192.168.172.0/24 [0/300] via 192.168.17.254, bond2, 02:11:37

When default route is set statically or lern from kernel then default-information originate works ok. I tried same on Cisco Nexus 9300 router (it uses very similar syntax) and redistribution works ok.

[brun064]

Here is a patch that is working for me on FRR 8.4.

frr-8.4-ospf-default-information-redist-fix.patch

[oldafn]

This patch is applicable to v8.4 branch only or I can insert it to recent v9/v8.5 branch?

[brun064]

I’ve only tested it on 8.4. Your results may very.

[oldafn]

Shouldn't such patch be inserted to master branch? Curent behavior looks like a bug.

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue is stale because it has been open 180 days with no activity. Comment or remove the autoclose label in order to avoid having this issue closed.

[frrbot[bot]]

This issue will be automatically closed in the specified period unless there is further activity.

[oldafn]

I see that after while there isn't any comment from maintainers, is there some plan to fix this bug in main branch?

[frrbot[bot]]

This issue will no longer be automatically closed.