@Harliff Could you check it? Available in the latest rolling release
vyos@r14# set protocols failover route 192.0.2.55/32 next-hop 192.168.122.1 check policy Possible completions: all-available All targets must be alive any-available Any target must be alive (default)
Hi guys,
This has a simple fix: starlette commit c568b55d set the attribute
Request._form = None
to support use of Request.form() as a context manager. Since we override the Request class for backwards-compatibility support (translation) of form-data requests, we need to check for value, not existence, of the attribute. Adding this fix allows updating FastAPI past 0.91.0.
bfd is able to monitoring static routes , using profiles and multi-hop to reached a peer :
PR https://github.com/vyos/vyos-1x/pull/1966
set protocols failover route 192.0.2.55/32 next-hop 192.168.122.1 check policy 'any-available' set protocols failover route 192.0.2.55/32 next-hop 192.168.122.1 check target '192.168.122.1' set protocols failover route 192.0.2.55/32 next-hop 192.168.122.1 check target '192.168.122.11' set protocols failover route 192.0.2.55/32 next-hop 192.168.122.1 check timeout '3' set protocols failover route 192.0.2.55/32 next-hop 192.168.122.1 interface 'eth0'
Don't have any idea how to integrate this logic to XML https://github.com/vyos/vyatta-wanloadbalance/blob/973421035568810e2583187c48d14054970b9806/templates/load-balancing/wan/node.def#L2-L5
Just in case someone wants to implement this: debugging must not be enabled by default, only on demand or via config.
Per VyOS maintainers, this operation isn't necessary.
In T5144#147124, @indrajitr wrote:PR for the fix: https://github.com/vyos/vyos-1x/pull/1962
Tested on latest "current" source tree build. Works fine and solves the "old syntax" cache file issue. Thank you for the quick and responsive fix.
That would be great!
In T1237#147125, @Harliff wrote:Sorry, missed some messages.
In T1237#146586, @Viacheslav wrote:We have targets-checks 203.0.113.1, 192.0.2.1, and if any of these targets are unreachable, we delete this route.
Is it correct?It is not correct. I think it would be better to remove the route if ALL of corresponding targets are unreachable.
A target may become unreachable due to a problem of its own rather than an uplink failure. This is the reason why I asked to add multiple targets per uplink.
In T1237#146839, @Viacheslav wrote:@Harliff Could you re-check?
Sorry, missed some messages.
In T5144#147087, @Viacheslav wrote:
PR for the fix: https://github.com/vyos/vyos-1x/pull/1962
The issue does not exit in the recent release 1.4-rolling-202304130846
submitted this PR: https://github.com/vyos/vyos-1x/pull/1958
In T5157#147008, @sdev wrote:Just to clarify, it changes again to pod-networkname in https://github.com/vyos/vyos-1x/commit/2a876059826927ef204e359a40395955f27503ce (next rolling image) to avoid name constraint issues.
Just to clarify, it changes again to pod-networkname in https://github.com/vyos/vyos-1x/commit/2a876059826927ef204e359a40395955f27503ce (next rolling image) to avoid name constraint issues.
In T5157#147001, @Viacheslav wrote:It uses other names in the newest versions, not cni-xxx
In T5156#147003, @Viacheslav wrote:Provide your configuration
It is difficult to say without it
Provide your configuration
It is difficult to say without it
It uses other names in the newest versions, not cni-xxx
#!/usr/bin/env python3 # # Copyright (C) 2022 VyOS maintainers and contributors # # This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify # it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 or later as # published by the Free Software Foundation. # # This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, # but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of # MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the # GNU General Public License for more details. # # You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License # along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. #
In T5157#146979, @sdev wrote:Can you share container config section?
Can you share container config section?
If I need to guess, it is just an issue that the BGP session gets configured before the route-maps
As I said, this happens with any config that includes route maps
Self-configuration of the http-api calls a service restart from the config mode script: some re-configuration should be possible without restart; the remaining should provide an explanatory 'success' response. Move to high-priority to address.
This is available in Sagitta thanks to the PKI subsystem; backport depends on backport of that subsystem.
Thanks for clarifying. Yes , I also saw the possibility of extending role based IAM to add on-premise image (that could be interesting for VyOS).
Could you share configuration ? where attached RM and BGP settings:
We can add guidelines about running vyos on LXC/LXD in the documentation
Must run in physical NIC pass-through mode
It is recommended to execute the container in privileged mode
This is currently only an initial implementation!