vyos-1x.git/src/migration-scripts/vrf, branch T6674-circ-trigger

T5427: Fix migration script arguments len expects 2 args

2023-08-02T09:12:23+00:00

The script's name is always provided as the first argument sys.argv[0] Expected length for argv is 2 (script itself + config file) Change: 'if (len(argv) < 1)' to 'if len(argv) < 2'

configtest: T4382: missing block in migration script vrf/0-to-1

2022-05-25T16:42:44+00:00

The config vrf-basic reveals a missing block in the migration script vrf/0-to-1, moving 'next-hop-vrf' to 'vrf'. As this only exists in Sagitta, modify script 0-to-1. Also, fix the 'system nt' typo seen in vrf-ospf.

VRF: T3655: proper connection tracking for VRFs

2021-07-17T19:36:39+00:00

Currently, all VRFs share the same connection tracking table, which can lead to problems: - traffic leaks to a wrong VRF - improper NAT rules handling when multiple VRFs contain the same IP networks - stateful firewall rules issues The commit implements connection tracking zones support. Each VRF utilizes its own zone, so connections will never mix up. It also adds some restrictions to VRF names and assigned table numbers, because of nftables and conntrack requirements: - VRF name should always start from a letter (interfaces that start from numbers are not supported in nftables rules) - table number must be in the 100-65535 range because conntrack supports only 65535 zones

vrf: route: static: T2450: we also need to migrate the interface based routes

2021-07-12T16:38:41+00:00

Previously during migration if one had used interface routes, the VRF based ones got not migrated. The following "old" VyOS 1.3 configuration did not get migrated: set protocols static interface-route 10.20.0.0/24 next-hop-interface eth2 next-hop-vrf 'blue' set protocols static interface-route 10.30.0.0/24 next-hop-interface br10 next-hop-vrf 'red' set protocols vrf blue static interface-route 10.0.0.0/24 next-hop-interface eth1 next-hop-vrf 'default' set protocols vrf red static interface-route 10.0.0.0/24 next-hop-interface eth1 next-hop-vrf 'default' set vrf name blue table '3000' set vrf name mgmt table '1000' set vrf name red table '2000' It must get migrated to: set protocols static route 10.20.0.0/24 interface eth2 vrf 'blue' set protocols static route 10.30.0.0/24 interface br10 vrf 'red' set vrf name blue protocols static route 10.0.0.0/24 interface eth1 vrf 'default' set vrf name blue table '3000' set vrf name mgmt table '1000' set vrf name red protocols static route 10.0.0.0/24 interface eth1 vrf 'default' set vrf name red table '2000'

vrf: T3344: move dynamic routing protocols under "vrf name protocols"

2021-03-14T13:46:01+00:00

Instead of having the dynamic routing protocols OSPF and BGP residing under the "protocols vrf [ospf|bgp]" nodes, rather move them directly under the "vrf name protocols [ospf|bgp]" node. Now all VRF related parts are placed under the same root node. This eases the verify steps tremendously, as we do not need to check wheter a VRF eists or not, it will always exist as we operate under a child node.

vrf: T2450: provide full protocol support in XML and Python with new CLI

2021-02-05T21:42:29+00:00