-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[202405][DualToR] : FRR 8.5.4 regression in Dual ToR. #21112
Comments
Underlying issue in 8.5.4: #17345 Later fixes were backported from later releases of FRR to 8.5.4 in the Looks like the problem is not specific to LAG but applicable to any link The transition from active to standby and then standby to active is |
@sudhanshukumar22 to update findings on current testing |
One interesting observation is, In the issue state (i.e when static route is in rejected state after config reload), if we remove that rejected static route and wait for atleast 3 mins, then re-adding of the static route is going through successfully. This 3 mins comes from zebra nexthop-group keep. |
sonic# show ip route static S>* 2.0.0.0/24 [1/0] via 46.1.1.3, Vlan100, weight 1, 00:01:05
sonic# exit Hello, this is FRRouting (version 10.0.1). 2024/10/16 08:48:48 [YDG3W-JND95] FD Limit set: 1048576 is stupidly large. Is this what you intended? Consider using --limit-fds also limiting size to 100000 S>* 2.0.0.0/24 [1/0] via 46.1.1.3, Vlan100, weight 1, 00:00:48
sonic# exit route-related configuration tasks Options: Commands: Error: argument is not in pattern prefix [vrf <vrf_name>] <A.B.C.D/M> nexthop <[vrf <vrf_name>] <A.B.C.D>>|<dev <dev_name>>! Hello, this is FRRouting (version 10.0.1). 2024/10/16 08:50:11 [YDG3W-JND95] FD Limit set: 1048576 is stupidly large. Is this what you intended? Consider using --limit-fds also limiting size to 100000 S>* 2.0.0.0/24 [1/0] via 46.1.1.3, Vlan100, weight 1, 00:00:09 Hello, this is FRRouting (version 10.0.1). 2024/10/16 08:51:57 [YDG3W-JND95] FD Limit set: 1048576 is stupidly large. Is this what you intended? Consider using --limit-fds also limiting size to 100000 S>* 2.0.0.0/24 [1/0] via 46.1.1.3, Vlan100, weight 1, 00:01:55 Hello, this is FRRouting (version 10.0.1). 2024/10/16 08:53:10 [YDG3W-JND95] FD Limit set: 1048576 is stupidly large. Is this what you intended? Consider using --limit-fds also limiting size to 100000 S>* 2.0.0.0/24 [1/0] via 46.1.1.3, Vlan100, weight 1, 00:00:14 |
I tried in a 2 node setup with one or two nexthops and issuing config relaod, the issue was not happening(see logs above). How can I create a DuelTOR setup ? |
Description
Steps to reproduce the issue:
show ip route static
Describe the results you received:
After config reload in this case the route is in rejected state and neither it is programmed in the hardware.
This can also be reproduced by simply running the sonic-mgmt test route/test_static_route.py::test_static_route_ecmp.
Please note that this issue is not seen with this test in active-standby, becasue we do not run ICMP responder and there is no switchover during config reload, however we have manually tested by turning on ICMP responder, that the static route goes into rejected state when standby ToR becomes active after config reload.
Describe the results you expected:
Output of
show version
:Output of
show techsupport
:Additional information you deem important (e.g. issue happens only occasionally):
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: