zebra: Allow multiple Explicit Sids support with behavior uN #18736
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
raja-rajasekar
force-pushed
the
rajasekarr/multi_uN_support
branch
from
4693ab3 to
125ea35
Compare
raja-rajasekar
force-pushed
the
rajasekarr/multi_uN_support
branch
from
125ea35 to
ebbae8c
Compare
|
ci:rerun |
ton31337
reviewed
Apr 30, 2025
raja-rajasekar
force-pushed
the
rajasekarr/multi_uN_support
branch
from
ebbae8c to
0901ffc
Compare
|
I'm seeing some errors reported by Address Sanitizer after applying your patch when I try to delete and re-allocate a SID. |
raja-rajasekar
force-pushed
the
rajasekarr/multi_uN_support
branch
from
0901ffc to
fe06893
Compare
raja-rajasekar
changed the title
raja-rajasekar
force-pushed
the
rajasekarr/multi_uN_support
branch
from
fe06893 to
f70e05c
Compare
Thanks Carmine.. Can you check now? Let me know now if things look good. |
In the current code, we cannot allocate more than one explicit Sid for
same uN behavior even if they are from different/same(with
differente node len) locator blocks.
For example, if we have the following config
segment-routing
srv6
static-sids
sid fcbb:bbbb:1::/48 locator MAIN behavior uN
sid 1234:5678:1::/48 locator RAJA behavior uN
srv6
locators
locator MAIN
prefix fcbb:bbbb:1::/48 block-len 32 node-len 16 func-bits 16
locator RAJA
prefix 1234:5678:1::/48 block-len 32 node-len 16 func-bits 16
Although the locators blocks are different, and staticd request to
allocate multiple sid seems valid, zebra allocates only the first
static-sid and returns the below error for others.
ZEBRA: [NGMNY-JWMWQ] get_srv6_sid_explicit: cannot alloc SID 1234:5678:1:: for ctx End USP: ctx already associated with SID fcbb:bbbb:1::
But we should allow a node behave as a multiple Endpoints expecially if
we have a topology where the node resides at the intersection of
multiple zones/domain.
Fix is to skip the 'if' condition check to bail out of the behavior is
END.
With fix:
ip -6 route show
1234:5678:1::/48 nhid 9 encap seg6local action End dev sr0 proto 196 metric 20 pref medium
fcbb:bbbb:1::/48 nhid 9 encap seg6local action End dev sr0 proto 196 metric 20 pref medium
Signed-off-by: Rajasekar Raja <[email protected]>
raja-rajasekar
force-pushed
the
rajasekarr/multi_uN_support
branch
from
f70e05c to
6913929
Compare
|
ci:rerun |
1 similar comment
|
ci:rerun |
cscarpitta
requested changes
May 13, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is also another issue.
Start from this configuration:
segment-routing
srv6
static-sids
sid fcbb:bbbb:1::/48 locator MAIN behavior uN
sid fcbb:cccc:1::/48 locator MAIN1 behavior uN
!
locators
locator MAIN1
prefix fcbb:bbbb:1::/48 block-len 32 node-len 16 func-bits 16
prefix fcbb:cccc:1::/48 block-len 32 node-len 16 func-bits 0
The two SIDs are allocated correctly:
router1# show segment-routing srv6 sid
SID Behavior Context Daemon/Instance Locator AllocationType
------------------------- --------- ----------------- --------- ----------------
fcbb:bbbb:1:: End - static(0) MAIN explicit
fcbb:cccc:1:: End - static(0) MAIN1 explicit
But when you try to remove a SID, FRR removes the wrong one:
router1# no sid fcbb:cccc:1::/48 locator MAIN1 behavior uN
router1#
router1#
router1# show segment-routing srv6 sid
SID Behavior Context Daemon/Instance Locator AllocationType
------------------------- --------- ----------------- --------- ----------------
fcbb:cccc:1:: End - static(0) MAIN1 explicit
|
@cscarpitta I think that's an excellent test case. The issue is that the i think in the ctx, we need to add something extra in case of multiple uN as a differentiating factor when requesting from clients.. maybe some id which we need to keep track of or do you have something in your mind ? for example in static_zebra_request_srv6_sid() so nothing to differentiate.., maybe something like ctx.uN_id or maybe locator etc...?? |
|
#18806 covers this + more scenarios . So closing this. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In the current code, we cannot allocate more than one explicit Sid for same uN behavior even if they are from different/same(with differente node len) locator blocks.
Although the locators blocks are different, and staticd request to allocate multiple sid seems valid, zebra allocates only the first static-sid and returns the below error for others.
Fix is to skip the 'if' condition check to bail out of the behavior is END.