bgp: T6151: Allow configuration of disable-ebgp-connected-route-check

[fett0]

Allow configuration of disable-ebgp-connected-route-check when the next-hop is learned not connected.

Change Summary

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Code style update (formatting, renaming)
• Refactoring (no functional changes)
• Migration from an old Vyatta component to vyos-1x, please link to related PR inside obsoleted component
• Other (please describe):

Related Task(s)

https://vyos.dev/T6151

Related PR(s)

Component(s) name

bgp

Proposed changes

How to test

vyos command :

set protocols bgp parameters disable-ebgp-connected-route-check

Smoketest result

vyos@vrf-test:~$ /usr/libexec/vyos/tests/smoke/cli/test_protocols_bgp.py
test_bgp_01_simple (__main__.TestProtocolsBGP.test_bgp_01_simple) ...

ok
test_bgp_02_neighbors (__main__.TestProtocolsBGP.test_bgp_02_neighbors) ...

ok
test_bgp_03_peer_groups (__main__.TestProtocolsBGP.test_bgp_03_peer_groups) ...

ok
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 27 tests in 128.218s

OK

Checklist:

• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document
• I have linked this PR to one or more Phabricator Task(s)
• I have run the components SMOKETESTS if applicable
• My commit headlines contain a valid Task id
• My change requires a change to the documentation
• I have updated the documentation accordingly

[c-po]

@Mergifyio backport sagitta

[mergify]

backport sagitta

✅ Backports have been created

• #3231 bgp: T6151: Allow configuration of disable-ebgp-connected-route-check (backport #3212) has been created for branch sagitta

[sever-sever]

But In the real life (as I remember) it doesn’t related loopback only interface.
Can confuse users to use loopback only
For example dummy and loopback work different way.
@dmbaturin any pros/cons?

[c-po]

Maybe simply use: loopback/dummy interface address?

[fett0]

we can move loopback/dummy interface address , Do you agree ?

[c-po]

@fett0 yeah, please change to: Allow peerings between eBGP peer using loopback/dummy interface address

[sever-sever]

Can it be a tunnel interface or VIF? :)
And yes, loopback/dummy looks better

[fett0]

Perfect ! I'll add a extend explanation in our documentation , just it case .