summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/src/migration-scripts/vrf
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2025-06-28T7591: remove copyright years from source filesChristian Breunig
The legal team says years are not necessary so we can go ahead with it, since it will simplify backporting. Automatically removed using: git ls-files | grep -v libvyosconfig | xargs sed -i -E \ 's/^# Copyright (19|20)[0-9]{2}(-[0-9]{4})? VyOS maintainers.*/# Copyright VyOS maintainers and contributors <maintainers@vyos.io>/g' In addition we will error-out during "make" if someone re-adds a legacy copyright notice
2025-05-05T7417: check existence of table setting before return_valueJohn Estabrook
Migration from 1.3.x may not contain table entries, later required. The migration script should not fail with error, leaving enforcement to config scripts.
2025-05-05T7417: check existence of path before set_tagJohn Estabrook
The migration script assumed the existence of path ['vrf', 'name', tag-val-name, 'protocols', 'static', 'route'] ignoring sole entries for [..., 'route6']. Check existence of each path before calling set_tag.
2024-06-26migration: T6007: convert all migration scripts to load as moduleJohn Estabrook
2023-08-02T5427: Fix migration script arguments len expects 2 argsViacheslav Hletenko
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'
2022-05-25configtest: T4382: missing block in migration script vrf/0-to-1John Estabrook
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.
2021-07-17VRF: T3655: proper connection tracking for VRFszsdc
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
2021-07-12vrf: route: static: T2450: we also need to migrate the interface based routesChristian Poessinger
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'
2021-03-14vrf: T3344: move dynamic routing protocols under "vrf name <name> protocols"Christian Poessinger
Instead of having the dynamic routing protocols OSPF and BGP residing under the "protocols vrf <name> [ospf|bgp]" nodes, rather move them directly under the "vrf name <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.
2021-02-05vrf: T2450: provide full protocol support in XML and Python with new CLIChristian Poessinger