Stanislav Zaikin

Hi Mark, Thanks for the feedback! IMO there shouldn't be such restriction as marking plain nexthops as inaccessible for labeled paths. Of course, the common case when you learn nexthops...

sure, here it is: ``` router bgp 65012 neighbor 192.168.61.2 remote-as 65011 ! address-family ipv4 vpn neighbor 192.168.61.2 activate neighbor 192.168.61.2 route-map permit-all in neighbor 192.168.61.2 route-map permit-all out exit-address-family...

it looks good to me, the flag is stripped but after checking amount of labels the flag is returned. in my case there aren't any labels for the nh, that's...

Hi @pguibert6WIND, ``` I think the real use case is something wiser, like the next-hop resolution does not see any labels and stops, whereas the next-hop at one point in...

Hi @louberger, Yes, but opt.B is just one of the cases. You can also find some other cases when there's no label for a nexthop in the RFC, like: ```...

okay, let me try to implement it. do you mean "mpls bgp" in neighbour scope or in global bgp configuration scope?

Hello @pguibert6WIND, Thank you for the patch.

Hello folks, I'm facing almost the same problem, when the frr starts all VPNv4 routes aren't installed as "inaccessible". Config is saved and the issue is reproducible every time. But...

I've noticed that here we have a couple of issue: * The main thing why I get nexthops unaccessible - there is a check when leaking routes from vpn to...

@jonlangemak I hoped we will get some comments from FRR maintainers. There's almost no presence of life in frr-dev mailing list, so seems like it's the main place to ask...