lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [23]   [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 2020-09-23 12 h 04, Michael Jeanson wrote:
    >> 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.
    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > Before writing new tests I just want to make sure we are trying to fix
    > the same issue. If I add a return route to the red VRF then we don't
    > need this patchset because whether the ICMP error are routed using the
    > table from the source or destination interface they will reach the
    > source host.
    >
    > The issue for which this patchset was sent only happens when the
    > destination interface's VRF doesn't have a route back to the source
    > host. I guess we might question if this is actually a bug or not.
    >
    > So the question really is, when a packet is forwarded between VRFs
    > through route leaking and an icmp error is generated, which table should
    > be used for the route lookup? And does it depend on the type of icmp
    > error? (e.g. TTL=1 happens before forwarding, but fragmentation needed
    > happens after when on the destination interface)

    As a side note, I don't mind reworking the tests as you requested even
    if the patchset as a whole ends up not being needed and if you think
    they are still useful. I just wanted to make sure we understood each other.

    Cheers,

    Michael

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-09-23 19:03    [W:3.786 / U:0.384 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site