—pfGeorge

As one of the leaderships in Networking (Firewalling/Routing at the first place) what is Your opinion about using Intel FPGA Programmable Acceleration Card N3000 link1, link2 link3, link4 (or newest products by Intel from same product line) in Your TNSR product for DPDK, vector packet processing, IPSEC, etc on speeds around 80-100Gb/s or now You have no sufficient resources to making drivers or have a doubts about is this really needed?

With best wishes,

I have been testing TNSR and I see an issue with routing to next hop in this scenario.
TNSR peers with another router in BGP on loopback interface and this peering in default routing table.
On TNSR, I configured multiple VRFs where I'm importing routes from default table into VRFs tables 'import vrf default'.
Routes didn't show up in VRF table unless one of two actions to be taken:
1- Peer with upstream router on the directly connected link not loopback.
2- Configure a route-map with 'import vrf route-map' where I set the next hop for all imported routes to connected interface instead of loopback.

My understanding here if it could understand to resolve next-hop from default table, it should be able to recursively lookup how to reach this loopback from default table as well.

Is there a knob to enable this or it's a default behavior can not be overwritten?

Thanks

I hope this message finds you well. I am reaching out to inquire about the possibility of accessing the TNSR API in a format other than the standard documentation provided. My primary goal is to utilize all available models within the TNSR suite and integrate them with Ansible for streamlined operations.

The current process of copying each module individually is quite time-consuming, and I am seeking a more efficient method. This approach, unfortunately, feels like it could extend indefinitely, perhaps even into the next year, which is not feasible for my project timelines.

I am very interested in exploring whether there exists an alternative way to access and implement the TNSR API that would allow me to use all models in a more consolidated and time-efficient manner. My aim is to automate processes using Ansible, and having a streamlined API access would significantly aid in achieving this.

If there are any existing solutions or suggestions you could offer, it would be immensely helpful. I am open to any recommendations that might assist in making this integration more seamless and efficient.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response and any assistance you can provide.

Best regards

For route leaking between VRFs, i am reviewing the documentation here
https://docs.netgate.com/tnsr/en/latest/routing/route-tables.html#communicate-between-vrfs

Is there a way to apply a prefix list (or route filter) instead of marking each route to be accessible through the next hop?
If i can use a range such as 192.168.1.0/24 ge 32 is much better than listing each route separately.

Lastly, arguably the best feature of JunOS is the 'commit confirmed'. Adding guard rails to configuration helps the admin avoid potential pitfalls of a misconfiguration or device lockout. This would be my most requested feature for sure. Having a configuration commit while writing it in the cli is something that is insane.

I'm just searching around for a home/lab router for the init7 25gBit Internet connection.

Since my home-lab is on Hyper-V, I saw it is not supported, I still wanted to give it a try and got it working. Just to share if someone else like to try that out.

Major problem is, AFAIK, that the Network Cards are not supported.

I am running my test Hyper-V on a HPE DL20 GEN10.

Using poweshell, I disconnected the Intel i350 dual port Ethernet Adapter from the host and reassigned to the VM, hint for commands and tutorials on how to do this: "VMAssignableDevice".

Here is what I did (put it together later, so I hope no typos or nothing missed)

$pnpdevs = Get-PnpDevice | Where-Object {$_.Present -eq $true} | Where-Object {$_.Class -eq "Net" -and $_.Manufacturer -eq "Intel"}
$pnpdevs
//verify your search above, might be different for any other system
$pnpdevs | Disable-PnpDevice
$locationpath0 = ($pnpdevs[0] | Get-PnpDeviceProperty DEVPKEY_Device_LocationPaths).data[0]
$locationpath1 = ($pnpdevs[1] | Get-PnpDeviceProperty DEVPKEY_Device_LocationPaths).data[0]
Dismount-VmHostAssignableDevice -locationpath $locationpath0 -force
Dismount-VmHostAssignableDevice -locationpath $locationpath1 -force
//set your VM to stop on host shutdown
Add-VMAssignableDevice -LocationPath $locationpath0 -VMName tnsr
Add-VMAssignableDevice -LocationPath $locationpath1 -VMName tnsr
//start VM

This worked like a charm, pushed a test stream though at max bandwidth with no issued for a few hours.

However, I think I still need to stop my testing here since DHCPv6 and RA/Delegation are not yet supported - and I like to keep my quite well working ipv6 setup alive.

I did not test but "assume" that delegating a Mellanox or Intel SFP28 card should also work similarly. Would be still great to see if anyone else could get this flying ;-)

Thought it might be usefull :-)

Happy Bandwidth!

I'm going to play around with TNSR and a 25G Wan connection.
I will do some tests with Audio and Video AES67 and SMPTE-2110 over Wan.

Now my question: Is there any way to do multicast routing? The Pimd Package is in the FRR Routing Suite included, but will it be usable? Tnsr pimd gives me 0 google results ;)

Thank in advance.