CCM can easily break BGP peering

[TimJones]

We recently ran into an issue in one of our clusters in that we had more than 10 LoadBalancer Services which tried to peer via MetalLB BGP. Due to a default limit of 10 prefixes, this caused all subsequent BGP peering to fail until we had Equinix support reset the BGP session after removing the excess Services (switched to using shared IPs).

Since this is a limit in Equinix side, I think it would be of value for the Equinix CCM to also limit number of IPs/prefixes that can be requested/ordered. Ideally an arg that can be set if the customer has arranged a higher session limit.

See https://deploy.equinix.com/developers/docs/metal/bgp/bgp-on-equinix-metal/#bgp-prefix-limit

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues.

This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the issue is closed

You can:

• Mark this issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
• Close this issue with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues.

This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the issue is closed

You can:

• Mark this issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten
• Close this issue with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle rotten

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.

This bot triages issues according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the issue is closed

You can:

• Reopen this issue with /reopen
• Mark this issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/close not-planned

[k8s-ci-robot]

@k8s-triage-robot: Closing this issue, marking it as "Not Planned".

In response to this:

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.

This bot triages issues according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the issue is closed

You can:

• Reopen this issue with /reopen
• Mark this issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/close not-planned

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[cprivitere]

/reopen

[cprivitere]

/remove-lifecycle rotten

[k8s-ci-robot]

@cprivitere: Reopened this issue.

In response to this:

/reopen

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[cprivitere]

/lifecycle frozen

[cprivitere]

/triage accepted

[cprivitere]

/remove-lifecycle frozen

[cprivitere]

@TimJones Hey did you get an error message from the API when this occurred? Was CPEM continuing to do bad things that caused it to get quickly back into the error state?

Also, does CPEM cause all the BGP to fail by asking for 11 prefixes? I'm trying to understand the value of CPEM throwing the error instead of just passing along the API error.

If we add that setting, we're now making a customer change TWO configs (one via support and one in CPEM) so I really want to understand the value before we do that.

[TimJones]

Apologies but I don't have any of the logs from CPEM for incident any more, only from the MetalLB side, which was:

{"caller":"level.go:63","error":"read OPEN from \"169.254.255.1:179\": got BGP notification code 0x0601 (Maximum Number of Prefixes Reached)","level":"error","localASN":65000,"msg":"failed to connect to peer","op":"connect","peer":"169.254.255.1:179","peerASN":65530,"ts":"2023-09-08T14:10:04.171904229Z"}