Frr!!!

quadrinary

Does FRR require pfSense v2.4.x? I'm not seeing it as an available package on my 2.3.4_1 test box.

Thanks

jimp

Does FRR require pfSense v2.4.x? I'm not seeing it as an available package on my 2.3.4_1 test box.

Yes. Eventually, if it tests out and works OK there, it will be enabled for 2.3.4. But for the time being it's only active for 2.4.x

quadrinary

@jimp:

@quadrinary:

Does FRR require pfSense v2.4.x? I'm not seeing it as an available package on my 2.3.4_1 test box.

Yes. Eventually, if it tests out and works OK there, it will be enabled for 2.3.4. But for the time being it's only active for 2.4.x

Sounds good. We're loading it into our lab environment this week.

quadrinary

A couple thoughts after working with FRR for the last couple days:

Super happy to see that FRR is listed under "Status" now - this is much clearer for engineers trying to see what's going on
Would it be possible to get a hook to FRR from the System -> Routing page?

It's nice to see a unified package handling the most critical protocols. At this point, does the pfSense team have a general preference for routing packages going forward? Might FRR become a de-facto component in pfSense?

jimp

@quadrinary:

Would it be possible to get a hook to FRR from the System -> Routing page?

No, we don't currently have a way for packages to hook into tabs on other areas yet. The only package that does it is OpenVPN client export but that's only because there is code for that in base, which we try not to do.

@quadrinary:

It's nice to see a unified package handling the most critical protocols. At this point, does the pfSense team have a general preference for routing packages going forward? Might FRR become a de-facto component in pfSense?

It's too early to say. It's possible, though with a subsystem like frr it works better as a package so it can get updates between formal releases.

quadrinary

Good to know. Any thoughts on enabling the RIP and IS-IS daemons as well?

jimp

They may come in as I have time and if I can fit the tabs in without it turning into a drop-down selector.

quadrinary

I've submitted a bug fix for the FRR package - the raw configs were being improperly referenced in config.xml. Unfortunately it got rolled into the same pull request as my OSPF cost-shifter for Quagga.

markdegroot

The FRR packages looks great guys!

Can anybody comment on the stability of this package? In other words: is it production ready?

jimp

I'd say yes. The only missing pieces are input validation at the moment which is important but not critical (so long as you are careful with inputs)

It should work better than Quagga for OSPF, and internal tests have already showed it works better against AWS than OpenBGPD. No more pfkey errors or traffic drops.

That said, it is new and we don't have a ton of feedback on it from a wide array of scenarios yet.

yon

I have a test that currently does not run properly，why it is can't add Local address X? 0.0.1version ipv6 peering not work. 0.0.2 all not work.

now i have to using openbgpd. ;)

jimp

@yon:

why it is can't add Local address X?

You set the update source on Neighbor entries (Edit neighbor, Basic Options, Update Source). You're trying to use OpenBGPD terminology on FRR, which is very much unlike OpenBGPD.

@yon:

0.0.1version ipv6 peering not work. 0.0.2 all not work.

"not work" does not help anyone. Start your own thread with specific details about the problem. Odds are high that it is a configuration issue or something else you did. Nothing changed for GUI configuration between 0.0.1 and 0.0.2.

jimp

Locking this thread, it's attracting unrelated replies. If you have problem with FRR, start a new thread.