FRR 3.0.4 bgp with CISCO Catalyst 3750

[FirelessWidelity]

Hello everyone. There were difficulties in BGP operation between FRR 3.0.4 and CISCO Catalyst 3750 12.2(55)SE12. I dont know if this problem has been fixed in the new FRR versions, but the CISCO switch does not share the routes created.

CISCO conf

interface Vlan1
 ip address 100.0.0.2 255.255.255.0
!
interface Vlan172
 ip address 172.16.0.1 255.255.255.0
!
interface Vlan2111
 ip address 2.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
!
interface Vlan2211
 ip address 2.2.1.1 255.255.0.0
!
router bgp 55002
 no bgp default ipv4-unicast
 bgp log-neighbor-changes
 bgp deterministic-med
 neighbor 100.0.0.1 remote-as 55001
 neighbor 172.16.0.33 remote-as 55003
 !
 address-family ipv4
  neighbor 100.0.0.1 activate
  neighbor 172.16.0.33 activate
  no auto-summary
  no synchronization
  network 2.1.1.0 mask 255.255.255.0
  network 2.2.0.0 mask 255.255.0.0
 exit-address-family
 !
 address-family ipv4 multicast
  neighbor 100.0.0.1 activate
  neighbor 172.16.0.33 activate
  no auto-summary
 exit-address-family
!
ip classless
ip route 5.5.5.0 255.255.255.0 Null0 254
cisco-sw2# 

FRR 3.0.4 conf

Current configuration:
!
frr version 3.0.4
frr defaults traditional
!
service integrated-vtysh-config
!
log file /var/tmp/frr.pipe
!
router bgp 55001
 neighbor 100.0.0.2 remote-as 55002
 neighbor 172.16.0.1 remote-as 55002
 !
 address-family ipv4 unicast
  network 1.1.1.0/24
  network 1.2.0.0/16
  network 10.0.0.0/24
  redistribute connected
 exit-address-family
 vnc defaults
  response-lifetime 3600
  exit-vnc
!
line vty
!
end
SW1# 

ping between cisco-sw2 and SW1:

SW1# ping 100.2
PING 100.2 (100.0.0.2): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 100.0.0.2: seq=0 ttl=255 time=4.703 ms
64 bytes from 100.0.0.2: seq=1 ttl=255 time=2.276 ms
64 bytes from 100.0.0.2: seq=2 ttl=255 time=1.732 ms

--- 100.2 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 1.732/2.903/4.703 ms
SW1# 

FRR sends the created routes to CISCO, encapsulating them in a "BGP UPDATE message", but CISCO provides access only to physically active routes.

FRR routes

SW1# show ip route 
Codes: K - kernel route, C - connected, S - static, R - RIP,
       O - OSPF, I - IS-IS, B - BGP, P - PIM, N - NHRP, T - Table,
       v - VNC, V - VNC-Direct,
       > - selected route, * - FIB route

C>* 1.1.1.0/24 is directly connected, pv-1111
C>* 1.2.0.0/16 is directly connected, pv-1211
C>* 10.0.0.0/24 is directly connected, pv-0010
C>* 100.0.0.0/24 is directly connected, pv-0001
SW1# 

CISCO routes:

cisco-sw2#show ip route 
Codes: C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
       D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area 
       N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2
       E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2
       i - IS-IS, su - IS-IS summary, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2
       ia - IS-IS inter area, * - candidate default, U - per-user static route
       o - ODR, P - periodic downloaded static route

Gateway of last resort is not set

     1.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks
B       1.1.1.0/24 [20/0] via 100.0.0.1, 01:02:04
B       1.2.0.0/16 [20/0] via 100.0.0.1, 01:02:04
     100.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C       100.0.0.0 is directly connected, Vlan1
     5.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
S       5.5.5.0 is directly connected, Null0
     172.16.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C       172.16.0.0 is directly connected, Vlan172
     10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
B       10.0.0.0 [20/0] via 100.0.0.1, 01:02:04
cisco-sw2# 

I studied the structure of the BGP frames, but I did not find messages like "route request" in them. Please do not advise me to upgrade to the new version of FRR, this is not possible in my case. I am ready to listen to development tips, I am a developer.

[ton31337]

Why FRR 3.x?

[FirelessWidelity]

I'm using the old kernel and glibc.

[FirelessWidelity]

Why FRR 3.x?

Today I tested CISCO with FRR 9.0, but now FRR has not shared new routes either. The configuration is the same. Could this be due to the fact that in addition to the Vlans created, there must be a physical connection to the route?

[ton31337]

Could you explain which routes you are missing? And on which side?

[FirelessWidelity]

The fact is that FRR 3.x shares all created routes, and CISCO shares only physically active ones. These are probably the features of the implementation difference.

[ton31337]

What do you mean "shares"?

[FirelessWidelity]

I'm sorry, I'm writing through a translator. I meant that FRR 3.x sends all created "network A.B.C.D mask X.X.X.X" in the UPDATE message.