Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because
the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
DescriptionFederico Paolinelli
2022-11-08 16:33:08 UTC
Description of problem:
Specifying a routing rule of the format
route-rules:
config:
- route-table: 255
priority: 32765
just to change the priority of a given table will fail because ip-from / ip-to are required. This is also true with the upcoming fwmark support added in https://github.com/nmstate/nmstate/pull/2072/files#diff-d7182597b1754d6ae01448ba3a7eee4f964824e7d1bfb0141e2063deac26eddfR254
A workaround is to use ip-from: 0.0.0.0/0 , but it'd be cleaner to avoid
the required field.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
How reproducible:
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
Actual results:
Expected results:
Additional info:
Comment 2Fernando F. Mancera
2022-11-11 11:25:47 UTC
Upstream documentation added for the new options.
Comment 6Fernando F. Mancera
2022-12-01 08:49:59 UTC
When managing routing policies a good use case is to change the priority of a given table. In order to do that, nmstate must support `from all to all` route rules. When not specifying ip-from and ip-to parameters kernel considers that the rule will match everything.
In Nmstate is must to also introduce the ip family because we need to identify if it is a ipv4 or ipv6 route rule.
```
route-rules:
config:
- route-table: 200
priority: 100
family: ipv4
```
When configuring the state defined above, the user should be able to see
```
100: from all lookup 200
```
when running `ip rule`
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.
For information on the advisory (nmstate bug fix and enhancement update), and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.
If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.
https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2023:2190
Description of problem: Specifying a routing rule of the format route-rules: config: - route-table: 255 priority: 32765 just to change the priority of a given table will fail because ip-from / ip-to are required. This is also true with the upcoming fwmark support added in https://github.com/nmstate/nmstate/pull/2072/files#diff-d7182597b1754d6ae01448ba3a7eee4f964824e7d1bfb0141e2063deac26eddfR254 A workaround is to use ip-from: 0.0.0.0/0 , but it'd be cleaner to avoid the required field. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: