All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>
To: Sun Paul <paulrbk@gmail.com>, David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org,
	Karl Heiss <kheiss@gmail.com>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Supporting 4 way connections in LKSCTP
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 18:15:44 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <529F7150.8080604@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFXGftJsVzR8XgdEmcRKP8DePZoF+xGbaeS-RPgr2XNo7snF3g@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/04/2013 12:57 PM, Sun Paul wrote:
> As I know, the A to C and A to D case must have a router in between to form
> SCTP multihome topology.

Not necessary.  I've produced proper multihoming topologies with just
VLANs and different subnet assignment.  You can even remove VLANs
if you correctly set your arp_ignore and arp_announce values.

-vlad

> On Dec 4, 2013 10:51 PM, "David Laight" <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> In normal operation, IP-A sends INIT to IP-X, IP-X returns INIT_ACK to
>>>> IP-A. IP-A then sends HB to IP-X, IP-X then returns HB_ACK to IP-A. In
>>>> the meantime, IP-B sends HB to IP-Y and IPY returns HB_ACK.
>>>>
>>>> In case of the path between IP-A and IP-X is broken, IP-B sends INIT
>>>> to IP-X, NODE-B uses IP-Y to return INIT_ACK to IP-B. Then IP-B sends
>>>> HB to IP-X, and IP-Y returns HB_ACK to IP-B. In the meantime, the HB
>>>> communication between IP-B and IP-Y follows the normal flow.
>>>>
>>>> Can I confirm, is it really valid?
>>>
>>> As long as NODE-B knows about both IP-A and IP-B, and NODE-A knows about
>>> both IP-X and IP-Y (meaning all the addresses were exchanged inside INIT
>>> and INIT-ACK), then this situation is perfectly valid.  In fact, this
>>> has been tested an multiple interops.
>>
>> There are some network configurations that do cause problems.
>> Consider 4 systems with 3 LAN segments:
>> A) 10.10.10.1 on LAN X and 192.168.1.1 on LAN Y.
>> B) 10.10.10.2 on LAN X and 192.168.1.2 on LAN Y.
>> C) 10.10.10.3 on LAN X.
>> D) 10.10.10.4 on LAN X and 192.168.1.2 on LAN Z.
>> There are no routers between the networks (and none of the systems
>> are running IP forwarding).
>>
>> If A connects to B everything is fine - traffic can use either LAN.
>>
>> Connections from A to C are problematic if C tries to send anything
>> (except a HB) to 192.168.1.1 before receiving a HB response.
>> One of the SCTP stacks we've used did send messages to an
>> inappropriate address, but I've forgotten which one.
>>
>> Connections between A and D fail unless the HB errors A receives
>> for 192.168.1.2 are ignored.
>>
>> Of course the application could explicitly bind to only the 10.x address
>> but that requires the application know the exact network topology
>> and may be difficult for incoming calls.
>>
>>         David
>>
>>
> 


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>
To: Sun Paul <paulrbk@gmail.com>, David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org,
	Karl Heiss <kheiss@gmail.com>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Supporting 4 way connections in LKSCTP
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:15:44 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <529F7150.8080604@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFXGftJsVzR8XgdEmcRKP8DePZoF+xGbaeS-RPgr2XNo7snF3g@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/04/2013 12:57 PM, Sun Paul wrote:
> As I know, the A to C and A to D case must have a router in between to form
> SCTP multihome topology.

Not necessary.  I've produced proper multihoming topologies with just
VLANs and different subnet assignment.  You can even remove VLANs
if you correctly set your arp_ignore and arp_announce values.

-vlad

> On Dec 4, 2013 10:51 PM, "David Laight" <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> In normal operation, IP-A sends INIT to IP-X, IP-X returns INIT_ACK to
>>>> IP-A. IP-A then sends HB to IP-X, IP-X then returns HB_ACK to IP-A. In
>>>> the meantime, IP-B sends HB to IP-Y and IPY returns HB_ACK.
>>>>
>>>> In case of the path between IP-A and IP-X is broken, IP-B sends INIT
>>>> to IP-X, NODE-B uses IP-Y to return INIT_ACK to IP-B. Then IP-B sends
>>>> HB to IP-X, and IP-Y returns HB_ACK to IP-B. In the meantime, the HB
>>>> communication between IP-B and IP-Y follows the normal flow.
>>>>
>>>> Can I confirm, is it really valid?
>>>
>>> As long as NODE-B knows about both IP-A and IP-B, and NODE-A knows about
>>> both IP-X and IP-Y (meaning all the addresses were exchanged inside INIT
>>> and INIT-ACK), then this situation is perfectly valid.  In fact, this
>>> has been tested an multiple interops.
>>
>> There are some network configurations that do cause problems.
>> Consider 4 systems with 3 LAN segments:
>> A) 10.10.10.1 on LAN X and 192.168.1.1 on LAN Y.
>> B) 10.10.10.2 on LAN X and 192.168.1.2 on LAN Y.
>> C) 10.10.10.3 on LAN X.
>> D) 10.10.10.4 on LAN X and 192.168.1.2 on LAN Z.
>> There are no routers between the networks (and none of the systems
>> are running IP forwarding).
>>
>> If A connects to B everything is fine - traffic can use either LAN.
>>
>> Connections from A to C are problematic if C tries to send anything
>> (except a HB) to 192.168.1.1 before receiving a HB response.
>> One of the SCTP stacks we've used did send messages to an
>> inappropriate address, but I've forgotten which one.
>>
>> Connections between A and D fail unless the HB errors A receives
>> for 192.168.1.2 are ignored.
>>
>> Of course the application could explicitly bind to only the 10.x address
>> but that requires the application know the exact network topology
>> and may be difficult for incoming calls.
>>
>>         David
>>
>>
> 


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>
To: Sun Paul <paulrbk@gmail.com>, David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org,
	Karl Heiss <kheiss@gmail.com>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Supporting 4 way connections in LKSCTP
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:15:44 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <529F7150.8080604@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFXGftJsVzR8XgdEmcRKP8DePZoF+xGbaeS-RPgr2XNo7snF3g@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/04/2013 12:57 PM, Sun Paul wrote:
> As I know, the A to C and A to D case must have a router in between to form
> SCTP multihome topology.

Not necessary.  I've produced proper multihoming topologies with just
VLANs and different subnet assignment.  You can even remove VLANs
if you correctly set your arp_ignore and arp_announce values.

-vlad

> On Dec 4, 2013 10:51 PM, "David Laight" <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> In normal operation, IP-A sends INIT to IP-X, IP-X returns INIT_ACK to
>>>> IP-A. IP-A then sends HB to IP-X, IP-X then returns HB_ACK to IP-A. In
>>>> the meantime, IP-B sends HB to IP-Y and IPY returns HB_ACK.
>>>>
>>>> In case of the path between IP-A and IP-X is broken, IP-B sends INIT
>>>> to IP-X, NODE-B uses IP-Y to return INIT_ACK to IP-B. Then IP-B sends
>>>> HB to IP-X, and IP-Y returns HB_ACK to IP-B. In the meantime, the HB
>>>> communication between IP-B and IP-Y follows the normal flow.
>>>>
>>>> Can I confirm, is it really valid?
>>>
>>> As long as NODE-B knows about both IP-A and IP-B, and NODE-A knows about
>>> both IP-X and IP-Y (meaning all the addresses were exchanged inside INIT
>>> and INIT-ACK), then this situation is perfectly valid.  In fact, this
>>> has been tested an multiple interops.
>>
>> There are some network configurations that do cause problems.
>> Consider 4 systems with 3 LAN segments:
>> A) 10.10.10.1 on LAN X and 192.168.1.1 on LAN Y.
>> B) 10.10.10.2 on LAN X and 192.168.1.2 on LAN Y.
>> C) 10.10.10.3 on LAN X.
>> D) 10.10.10.4 on LAN X and 192.168.1.2 on LAN Z.
>> There are no routers between the networks (and none of the systems
>> are running IP forwarding).
>>
>> If A connects to B everything is fine - traffic can use either LAN.
>>
>> Connections from A to C are problematic if C tries to send anything
>> (except a HB) to 192.168.1.1 before receiving a HB response.
>> One of the SCTP stacks we've used did send messages to an
>> inappropriate address, but I've forgotten which one.
>>
>> Connections between A and D fail unless the HB errors A receives
>> for 192.168.1.2 are ignored.
>>
>> Of course the application could explicitly bind to only the 10.x address
>> but that requires the application know the exact network topology
>> and may be difficult for incoming calls.
>>
>>         David
>>
>>
> 

  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-12-04 18:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 80+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-11-25  4:39 Supporting 4 way connections in LKSCTP Sun Paul
2013-11-26  1:03 ` Sun Paul
2013-11-26  1:03   ` Sun Paul
2013-11-26 15:19   ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-11-26 15:19     ` Vlad Yasevich
     [not found]     ` <CAFXGftLsKm9a5bmXX4Fe+rnSvYVdBDOyYGwisRP7XMu+ky=DGw@mail.gmail.com>
2013-11-26 23:10       ` Sun Paul
2013-11-26 23:10         ` Sun Paul
2013-11-27 12:45         ` Neil Horman
2013-11-27 12:45           ` Neil Horman
2013-11-28  4:03           ` Sun Paul
2013-11-28  4:03             ` Sun Paul
2013-12-02 14:38             ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-02 14:38               ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-02 15:45               ` Karl Heiss
2013-12-02 15:45                 ` Karl Heiss
2013-12-02 16:42                 ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-02 16:42                   ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-02 17:10                   ` Karl Heiss
2013-12-02 17:10                     ` Karl Heiss
2013-12-03  1:31                   ` Sun Paul
2013-12-03  1:31                     ` Sun Paul
2013-12-03  1:39                     ` Sun Paul
2013-12-03  1:39                       ` Sun Paul
2013-12-03  2:03                       ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-03  2:03                         ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-03  2:19                         ` Sun Paul
2013-12-03  2:19                           ` Sun Paul
2013-12-03 12:32                           ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-03 12:32                             ` Vlad Yasevich
     [not found]                             ` <CAFXGftK5tz90OzObiV7Hi+g080j3zWCNdo217CKdNkOY4JWQUg@mail.gmail.com>
2013-12-03 15:22                               ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-03 15:22                                 ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-03 15:22                                 ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-04  1:59                                 ` Sun Paul
2013-12-04  1:59                                   ` Sun Paul
2013-12-04 14:16                                   ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-04 14:16                                     ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-04 14:16                                     ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-04 14:50                                     ` David Laight
2013-12-04 14:50                                       ` David Laight
2013-12-04 14:50                                       ` David Laight
2013-12-04 15:41                                       ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-04 15:41                                         ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-04 16:01                                         ` Michael Tuexen
2013-12-04 16:01                                           ` Michael Tuexen
2013-12-04 16:12                                           ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-04 16:12                                             ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-04 16:12                                             ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-04 16:25                                             ` Michael Tuexen
2013-12-04 16:25                                               ` Michael Tuexen
2013-12-04 16:25                                               ` Michael Tuexen
2013-12-04 18:23                                               ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-04 18:23                                                 ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-04 18:23                                                 ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-04 19:39                                                 ` Michael Tuexen
2013-12-04 19:39                                                   ` Michael Tuexen
2013-12-04 19:39                                                   ` Michael Tuexen
2013-12-05  9:35                                                 ` David Laight
2013-12-05  9:35                                                   ` David Laight
2013-12-05  9:35                                                   ` David Laight
2013-12-05 13:07                                                   ` Michael Tuexen
2013-12-05 13:07                                                     ` Michael Tuexen
2013-12-05 13:07                                                     ` Michael Tuexen
2013-12-04 16:48                                             ` David Laight
2013-12-04 16:48                                               ` David Laight
2013-12-04 16:48                                               ` David Laight
2013-12-04 17:06                                               ` Michael Tuexen
2013-12-04 17:06                                                 ` Michael Tuexen
2013-12-04 17:06                                                 ` Michael Tuexen
2013-12-04 16:12                                         ` David Laight
2013-12-04 16:12                                           ` David Laight
2013-12-04 16:12                                           ` David Laight
     [not found]                                       ` <CAFXGftJsVzR8XgdEmcRKP8DePZoF+xGbaeS-RPgr2XNo7snF3g@mail.gmail.com>
2013-12-04 18:15                                         ` Vlad Yasevich [this message]
2013-12-04 18:15                                           ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-04 18:15                                           ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-03  2:02                     ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-03  2:02                       ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-12-03  2:21                       ` Sun Paul
2013-12-03  2:21                         ` Sun Paul
2013-12-06  2:12   ` Sun Paul
2013-12-06  2:12     ` Sun Paul

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=529F7150.8080604@gmail.com \
    --to=vyasevich@gmail.com \
    --cc=David.Laight@aculab.com \
    --cc=kheiss@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
    --cc=paulrbk@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.