Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] l3mdev icmp error route lookup fixes | From | Michael Jeanson <> | Date | Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:03:03 -0400 |
| |
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
| |