Skip to content
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

Basic ipv6 support #112

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: stable/yoga-m3
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Basic ipv6 support #112

wants to merge 7 commits into from

Conversation

sebageek
Copy link
Collaborator

@sebageek sebageek commented Jun 5, 2024

There is still some testing to be done. Also, the tests are not yet complete

In VBInterface.postflight() we only need to call _update(), as we're
already scoped to a router (and have a context).
With this patch we're supporting IPv6 partly in our infrastructure, at
least for internal networks. This enables the v6 address family on our
VRFs (if there is an IPv6 subnet connected to the router) and we
configure IPv6 addresses on interfaces where needed.

For BGPVPN we currently skip all v6 subnets. For extraroutes there is
still testing to be done.
We can now configure IPv6 routes on our hardware routers, including
default gateways.

As we now return an empty dict if there are no routes we should no
longer see any route diffs when the router has no default route
configured.
@sebageek sebageek force-pushed the basic-ipv6-support branch 2 times, most recently from f360938 to d2ffc25 Compare November 14, 2024 10:27
@sebageek sebageek marked this pull request as ready for review November 14, 2024 11:40
Support announcing internal IPv6 CIDRs via BGPVPN, if we have them. This
does not yet support route-targets / route-maps inside VRFs.
For our external prefixes we need support for IPv6 prefix lists.
We now support setting route-targets and export maps on the v6
address-family.
Route Maps can now reference IPv6 prefix lists. We also did some
maintenance on the RouteMap class, like removing the unused enable_bgp
flag and making sure that specifying both prefix_list and access_list
don't override each other's match conditions (though this hasn't been
used so far).

As we don't know yet how we'll transport IPv6 prefixes from ACI/EVPN to
our routers we'll for now leave the RoutePrefix to be v4 only and don't
reference it for v6 addresses. Once we know how that part of the infra
is going to work we'll fill it with life!
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant