Add new MRT attributes#71
Merged
Merged
Conversation
3b68a53 to
99e555a
Compare
…from the latest providers
…test to save space, remove extranous testing code
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Changes
INFOmessage for any path attributes GoBGP doesn't support, both RIPE RIS and RouteViews' latest MRT file contains one (see details below)Reviewer Note
I changed the behavior so that if an error is encountered when parsing a MRT body, we'll skip that MRT msg rather than aborting.
A couple RIB MRT's I pulled from RouteViews (and also from RIPE RIS) had an attribute that GoBGP didn't recognize, even with the latest version. It seems
even subtype = 249is used by some router vendors to implement custom logic since it's unassigned by IANA.I think skipping these unparseable ones (and logging at
infolevel) and continuing is the best we can do.