From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Ahern Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 3/6] net: Introduce VRF device driver - v2 Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 20:39:53 -0600 Message-ID: <559F3079.1040203@cumulusnetworks.com> References: <1436195001-4818-1-git-send-email-dsa@cumulusnetworks.com> <1436195001-4818-4-git-send-email-dsa@cumulusnetworks.com> <559EAD2A.2090002@cumulusnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev , Shrijeet Mukherjee , Roopa Prabhu , Andy Gospodarek , jtoppins@cumulusnetworks.com, nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com, ddutt@cumulusnetworks.com, Hannes Frederic Sowa , Nicolas Dichtel , Stephen Hemminger , hadi@mojatatu.com, "Eric W. Biederman" , David Miller To: Sowmini Varadhan Return-path: Received: from mail-ig0-f179.google.com ([209.85.213.179]:37914 "EHLO mail-ig0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750800AbbGJCj5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jul 2015 22:39:57 -0400 Received: by igrv9 with SMTP id v9so3746681igr.1 for ; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 19:39:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 7/9/15 11:28 AM, Sowmini Varadhan wrote: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 7:19 PM, David Ahern wrote: > >> On the to-do list to use cmsg to specify a VRF for outbound packets using >> non-connected sockets. I do not believe it is going to work, but need to >> look into it. >> >>> What about setting ipsec policy for interfaces in the vrf? > > From a purely parochial standpoint, how would rds sockets work in this model? > Would the tcp encaps happen before or after the the vrf "driver" output? > Same problem for NFS. If I set the VRF context (ie., set the SO_BINDTODEVICE for all sockets) of any RDS, NFS or any other socket app it runs in that VRF context and works just fine. > > From a non-parochial standpoint. There are a *lot* of routing apps that actually > need more visibility into many details about the "slave" interface: e.g., OSPF, > ARP snoop, IPSLA.. the list is pretty long. > > I think it's a bad idea to use a "driver" to represent a table lookup. Too many > hacks will become necessary. Most of the changes needed to the networking stack are to address which table is used for FIB lookups. The stack has a strong preference to the local and main tables. I have a new patch set which better explains patch 4 in this version. I'll send it out in the next few days, but you can get a preview here: https://github.com/dsahern/linux.git, vrf-dev-4.1-v2 branch David