From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Ahern <dsa@cumulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: question about vrf-lite
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 09:18:04 -0700
Message-ID: <568D3E3C.2030301@cumulusnetworks.com>
References: <1452074022-11816-1-git-send-email-roy.qing.li@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: roy.qing.li@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]:35349 "EHLO
	mail-ob0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751582AbcAFQSH (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:18:07 -0500
Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id xn1so29353606obc.2
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 06 Jan 2016 08:18:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1452074022-11816-1-git-send-email-roy.qing.li@gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On 1/6/16 2:53 AM, roy.qing.li@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi David Ahern:
>
> when I test vrf-lite, I meet a question, could you help me?
>
> the envirnment is below:
>                                                   N2
>             N1 (all configs here)          +---------------+
>      +--------------+                      |               |
>      |              |                      |               |
>      |eth0 :10.0.2.1+----------------------+eth0 :10.0.2.2 |
>      |              |                      +---------------+
>      | VRF 1        |
>      | table 5      |
>      |              |
>      +---------------+
>      |              |
>      | VRF 2        |                             N3
>      | table 6      |                      +---------------+
>      |              |                      |               |
>      |eth1 :10.0.2.1+----------------------+eth0 :10.0.2.2 |
>      +--------------+                      +---------------+
>
> and configuration on N1 is below:
>
> ip link add vrf1 type vrf table 5
> ip link add vrf2 type vrf table 6
> ip rule add pref 200 oif vrf1 lookup 5
> ip rule add pref 200 iif vrf1 lookup 5
> ip rule add pref 200 oif vrf2 lookup 6
> ip rule add pref 200 iif vrf2 lookup 6
> ip link set vrf1 up
> ip link set vrf2 up
> ip link set eth0 master vrf1
> ip link set eth1 master vrf2
>
> the route information is below:
>
> # ip route get 10.0.2.2 oif vrf1
> 10.0.2.2 dev eth0  table 5  src 10.0.2.1
>      cache
> #
> # ip route get 10.0.2.2 oif vrf2
> 10.0.2.2 dev eth1  table 6  src 10.0.2.1
>      cache
> #
> #uname -r
> 4.4.0-rc5
> #
>
> when run the ping with different interfaces on N1, I expect
> "ping -I vrf1 10.0.2.2" send to/receive from packets with N2,
> "ping -I vrf2 10.0.2.2" send to/receive from packets with N3,
>
> but I found whether the interface is vrf1 or vrf2, the packets always
> is sent out through eth0, N2 reply; and no packets sent out through
> eth1.
>
> is it right?

no. The above works fine for me. I literally copied and pasted all of 
the commands except the master ones which were adapted to my setup -- 
eth9 and eth11 for me instead of eth0 and eth1. tcpdump on N2, N3 show 
the right one is receiving packets based on which 'ping -I vrf<N>' is run.

Do tables 5 and 6 have the right routes?