lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] l3mdev icmp error route lookup fixes
From
Date
On 9/22/20 7:52 AM, Michael Jeanson wrote:
>>>
>>> the test setup is bad. You have r1 dropping the MTU in VRF red, but not
>>> telling VRF red how to send back the ICMP. e.g., for IPv4 add:
>>>
>>> ip -netns r1 ro add vrf red 172.16.1.0/24 dev blue
>>>
>>> do the same for v6.
>>>
>>> Also, I do not see a reason for r2; I suggest dropping it. What you are
>>> testing is icmp crossing VRF with route leaking, so there should not be
>>> a need for r2 which leads to asymmetrical routing (172.16.1.0 via r1 and
>>> the return via r2).
>
> The objective of the test was to replicate a clients environment where
> packets are crossing from a VRF which has a route back to the source to
> one which doesn't while reaching a ttl of 0. If the route lookup for the
> icmp error is done on the interface in the first VRF, it can be routed to
> the source but not on the interface in the second VRF which is the
> current behaviour for icmp errors generated while crossing between VRFs.
>
> There may be a better test case that doesn't involve asymmetric routing
> to test this but it's the only way I found to replicate this.
>

It should work without asymmetric routing; adding the return route to
the second vrf as I mentioned above fixes the FRAG_NEEDED problem. It
should work for TTL as well.

Adding a second pass on the tests with the return through r2 is fine,
but add a first pass for the more typical case.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-23 04:00    [W:0.058 / U:3.668 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site