lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: routing bug?
    From
    Date
    Le vendredi 18 novembre 2011 à 14:23 +0100, Pozsár Balázs a écrit :
    > On 2011-11-18 14:09, Eric Dumazet wrote:
    > > Le vendredi 18 novembre 2011 à 13:48 +0100, Sven-Haegar Koch a écrit :
    > >
    > >> Added netdev list to CC:, there you should have a higher chance of a
    > >> usefull answer.
    > >>
    > >> On Fri, 18 Nov 2011, Pozsár Balázs wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>> Hi all,
    > >>>
    > >>> I have been struggling with this not easily reproducible issue since a while.
    > >>> I am using linux kernel v3.1.0, and sometimes routing to a few IP addresses
    > >>> does not work. What seems to happen is that instead of sending the packet to
    > >>> the gateway, the kernel treats the destination address as local, and tries to
    > >>> gets its MAC address via ARP.
    > >>>
    > >>> For example, now my current IP address is 172.16.1.104/24, the gateway is
    > >>> 172.16.1.254:
    > >>>
    > >>> |# ifconfig eth0 eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1B:63:97:FC:DC
    > >>> inet addr:172.16.1.104 Bcast:172.16.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
    > >>> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
    > >>> RX packets:230772 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
    > >>> TX packets:171013 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
    > >>> collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
    > >>> RX bytes:191879370 (182.9 Mb) TX bytes:47173253 (44.9 Mb)
    > >>> Interrupt:17
    > >>>
    > >>> # route -n
    > >>> Kernel IP routing table
    > >>> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
    > >>> 0.0.0.0 172.16.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
    > >>> 172.16.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 1 0 0 eth0
    > >>> |
    > >>>
    > >>> I can ping a few addresses, but not 172.16.0.59:
    > >>>
    > >>> |# ping -c1 172.16.1.254
    > >>> PING 172.16.1.254 (172.16.1.254) 56(84) bytes of data.
    > >>> 64 bytes from 172.16.1.254: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.383 ms
    > >>>
    > >>> --- 172.16.1.254 ping statistics ---
    > >>> 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
    > >>> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.383/0.383/0.383/0.000 ms
    > >>> root@pozsybook:~# ping -c1 172.16.0.1
    > >>> PING 172.16.0.1 (172.16.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
    > >>> 64 bytes from 172.16.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=5.54 ms
    > >>>
    > >>> --- 172.16.0.1 ping statistics ---
    > >>> 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
    > >>> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 5.545/5.545/5.545/0.000 ms
    > >>> root@pozsybook:~# ping -c1 172.16.0.2
    > >>> PING 172.16.0.2 (172.16.0.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
    > >>> 64 bytes from 172.16.0.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=62 time=7.92 ms
    > >>>
    > >>> --- 172.16.0.2 ping statistics ---
    > >>> 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
    > >>> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 7.925/7.925/7.925/0.000 ms
    > >>> root@pozsybook:~# ping -c1 172.16.0.59
    > >>> PING 172.16.0.59 (172.16.0.59) 56(84) bytes of data.
    > >>> From 172.16.1.104 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
    > >>>
    > >>> --- 172.16.0.59 ping statistics ---
    > >>> 1 packets transmitted, 0 received, +1 errors, 100% packet loss, time 0ms
    > >>> |
    > >>>
    > >>> When trying to ping 172.16.0.59, I can see in tcpdump that an ARP req was
    > >>> sent:
    > >>>
    > >>> |# tcpdump -n -i eth0|grep ARP
    > >>> tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
    > >>> listening on eth0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
    > >>> 15:25:16.671217 ARP, Request who-has 172.16.0.59 tell 172.16.1.104, length 28
    > >>> |
    > >>>
    > >>> and /proc/net/arp has an incomplete entry for 172.16.0.59:
    > >>>
    > >>> |# grep 172.16.0.59 /proc/net/arp
    > >>>
    > >>> 172.16.0.59 0x1 0x0 00:00:00:00:00:00 * eth0
    > >>> |
    > >>>
    > >>> Please note, that 172.16.0.59 /is/ accessible from this LAN from other
    > >>> computers.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> Does anyone have any idea of what's going on? Thanks,
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> Balazs Pozsar
    > >>>
    > >>> ps: I think it is related to this one: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/11/16/292
    > >>>
    > >>> --
    > >>>
    > > Could you send us result of :
    > >
    > > ip route get 172.16.0.59
    > > ip route list cache match 172.16.0.59
    > >
    >
    > I did not tell you in my first mail, that some times different hosts are
    > reachable and unreachable. I will try to not confuse you :)
    > As of now, 172.16.0.59 is OK, and 172.16.0.37 is NOT OK.
    > Also, 172.16.0.64 is OK now, and 172.16.0.42 is NOT OK now.
    >
    > The two commands you have requested give the following output for these
    > IP addresses:
    >
    > These are OK:
    >
    > # ip route get 172.16.0.64
    > 172.16.0.64 via 172.16.1.254 dev eth0 src 172.16.1.22
    > cache
    > # ip route get 172.16.0.59
    > 172.16.0.59 via 172.16.1.254 dev eth0 src 172.16.1.22
    > cache
    >
    > These are NOT OK:
    >
    > # ip route get 172.16.0.37
    > 172.16.0.37 dev eth0 src 172.16.1.22
    > cache <redirected> ipid 0x97a4
    > # ip route get 172.16.0.42
    > 172.16.0.42 dev eth0 src 172.16.1.22
    > cache <redirected> ipid 0x0d21
    >
    > These are OK:
    >
    > # ip route list cache match 172.16.0.59
    > 172.16.0.59 via 172.16.1.254 dev eth0 src 172.16.1.22
    > cache
    > # ip route list cache match 172.16.0.64
    > 172.16.0.64 via 172.16.1.254 dev eth0 src 172.16.1.22
    > cache
    >
    > These are NOT OK:
    >
    > # ip route list cache match 172.16.0.37
    > 172.16.0.37 dev eth0 src 172.16.1.22
    > cache <redirected> ipid 0x97a4
    > 172.16.0.37 from 172.16.1.22 dev eth0
    > cache <redirected> ipid 0x97a4
    > 172.16.0.37 from 172.16.1.22 dev eth0
    > cache <redirected> ipid 0x97a4
    > # ip route list cache match 172.16.0.42
    > 172.16.0.42 dev eth0 src 172.16.1.22
    > cache <redirected> ipid 0x0d21
    > 172.16.0.42 from 172.16.1.22 dev eth0
    > cache <redirected> ipid 0x0d21
    >
    >
    > How can I fix this?
    >
    > Thanks!

    We are working on it (see threads in netdev)

    You can in the meantime

    echo 0 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth0/accept_redirects



    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-11-18 14:37    [W:0.041 / U:30.132 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site