Federico Paolinelli

> ``` > route-map 172.18.0.5-out permit 1 > match ip address prefix-list 172.18.0.5-100-ipv4-localpref-prefixes > on-match next > set local-preference 100 > exit > ! > route-map 172.18.0.5-out permit 2 >...

@ton31337 here we go: ``` 2024/07/12 15:53:58.328 BGP: [T5JFA-13199] subgroup_process_announce_selected: p=192.168.0.0/24, selected=0x7f56a3a81330 2024/07/12 15:53:58.328 BGP: [RYF1Z-ZKDRS] route_match_address_prefix_list: Prefix List 172.30.0.2-100-ipv4-localpref-prefixes specified does not exist defaulting to NO_MATCH 2024/07/12 15:53:58.328 BGP:...

I checked only the first, seem to be there, so I'd say it's not related to the redundant match (although it makes sense to remove it).

Definitely during reload. It's a battery of e2e tests, where on each test we run a different configuration and do some assertions.

Here's another run: ``` This is the neighbor complaining about missing routes (172.18.0.5) Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, = multipath, i internal, r...

Last reload event: [lastreload.txt.gz](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/16378850/lastreload.txt.gz)

Sequence of reloads in the last 10 minutes [reload.txt.gz](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/16378892/reload.txt.gz) Every reload sequence starts with `Caught SIGHUP and acquired lock! Reloading FRR..` and ends with `FRR reloaded successfully! 2 seconds` Every...

[frr.zip](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/16389727/frr.zip)

As discussed on slack, I attached the logs of the reloader and the generated configuration when running with 9.1 (the generated config is the same regardless).

Sorry for the extreme delay @ton31337 , here I am with the additional information: Here we have `172.18.0.5` not getting routes from `172.18.0.2`. From the logs the usual: ``` 2024/09/12...