[ixpmanager] some questions re: IXP 5 (solved!)

[Athanasios Douitsis]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 10:39:43AM +0000, Barry O'Donovan wrote:

> 
> Great, glad it's solved! Suggestion on verbosity noted below but as you
> recognise that's not trivial as the same code is used by the web
> frontend also. I may see what we can do with logging.

:-)

Yip, fully acknowledged, I'd say that if I'm the only one that bumped
into that problem, maybe it's too much trouble for too little gain.

> 
>  - Barry
> 
> 
> Athanasios Douitsis wrote on 05/11/2019 10:34:
> > On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 09:35:58AM +0000, Barry O'Donovan wrote:
> > 
> >>
> >>
> >> Athanasios Douitsis wrote on 05/11/2019 00:41:
> >>> Yes, that's my problem. Visiting the URL you indicate or using artisan
> >>> router:filtered-prefixes $customer_id does not work. I monitor the log
> >>> in one of our route servers and I don't see any hits coming from IXP5.
> >>
> >> Okay, I have added more detail to the documentation here:
> >>
> >> https://docs.ixpmanager.org/features/route-servers/#displaying-filtered-prefixes
> >>
> >> Can you see if all the conditions are met? Also, when you say you can
> >> see these "filtered prefixes from my looking glass", I trust you mean
> >> the built in looking glass within IXP Manager?
> > 
> > Hello Barry,
> > 
> > Yip, that's the looking glass. I took a careful look at the conditions
> > and the large communities checkbox (in each route server) was the
> > culprit. After I enabled it, everything went smooth, problem solved. So
> > the documentation you've added is really helpful. It would also be
> > immensely useful if some flag like -vvv could be added to the
> > router:filtered-prefixes target, that would cause the command to emit
> > some debugging output, which routers are visited and which routers are
> > skipped for instance.  Though I fully understand that this would require
> > changes in many places throughout the codebase.
> >>
> >>> About the cache, using CACHE_DRIVER=array makes the artisan command to
> >>> throw an error saying that I need a persistent cache. Using "file" seems
> >>> to make that error go away. Using "database" (keeping in mind what you
> >>> said) also makes it go away.
> >>
> >> Yes, this is the only area of IXP Manager that requires a persistent
> >> cache currently. This is to facilitate job dispatching in the future as
> >> IXP Manager implements more provisioning functionality.
> >>
> >> Added a note about this to the docs referenced above also.
> > 
> > Lovely, glad to hear it :-)
> > 
> > Again, many thanks Barry!
> > 
> > 
> >>
> >>  - Barry
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Kind regards,
> Barry O'Donovan
> INEX Operations
> 
> https://www.inex.ie/support/
> +353 1 531 3339
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Athanasios Douitsis
National Technical University of Athens NOC
e: aduitsis at noc.ntua.gr | t: +302107722409