* Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that routing entry?
@ 2014-04-10 8:23 zhuyj
2014-04-11 9:15 ` zhuyj
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: zhuyj @ 2014-04-10 8:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netdev, David S. Miller, ebiederm, ja, zhuyj,
Yang, Zhangle (Eric), Tao, Yue, Zadoyan, Grant
Hi, David
With ubuntu 12.04, I run the following to reproduce this defect.
1) Configure an interface
ifconfig eth1 150.0.0.1/24 up
2) Add routing entry via that interface address
route add -net 200.0.0.0/24 gw 150.0.0.1
3) Change the ip address on that interface as shown below.
ifconfig eth1 151.0.0.1/24 up
4) Check netlink messages with "ip monitor all". There is no route
delete netlink message.
[ADDR]Deleted 3: eth1 inet 150.0.0.1/24 brd 150.0.0.255 scope global eth1
[ROUTE]Deleted 150.0.0.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src
150.0.0.1
[ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 150.0.0.255 dev eth1 table local proto
kernel scope link src 150.0.0.1
[ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 150.0.0.0 dev eth1 table local proto kernel
scope link src 150.0.0.1
[ROUTE]Deleted local 150.0.0.1 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope
host src 150.0.0.1
[NEIGH]224.0.0.251 dev eth1 lladdr 01:00:5e:00:00:fb NOARP
[NEIGH]224.0.0.22 dev eth1 lladdr 01:00:5e:00:00:16 NOARP
[ADDR]3: eth1 inet 151.0.0.1/16 brd 151.0.255.255 scope global eth1
[ROUTE]local 151.0.0.1 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope host
src 151.0.0.1
[ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.255.255 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope
link src 151.0.0.1
[ROUTE]151.0.0.0/16 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1
[ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.0.0 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope
link src 151.0.0.1
[ADDR]Deleted 3: eth1 inet 151.0.0.1/16 brd 151.0.255.255 scope
global eth1
[ROUTE]Deleted 151.0.0.0/16 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src
151.0.0.1
[ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 151.0.255.255 dev eth1 table local proto
kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1
[ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 151.0.0.0 dev eth1 table local proto kernel
scope link src 151.0.0.1
[ROUTE]Deleted local 151.0.0.1 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope
host src 151.0.0.1
[NEIGH]224.0.0.22 dev eth1 lladdr 01:00:5e:00:00:16 NOARP
[ADDR]3: eth1 inet 151.0.0.1/24 brd 151.0.0.255 scope global eth1
[ROUTE]local 151.0.0.1 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope host
src 151.0.0.1
[ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.0.255 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope
link src 151.0.0.1
[ROUTE]151.0.0.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1
[ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.0.0 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope
link src 151.0.0.1
There is no netlink message to notify that 200.0.0.0/24 is deleted. But
in fact, this 200.0.0.0/24 route item disappears.
I checked the source code, and I found the following is the process to
delete static routes when the attached interface is deleted.
1) | fib_netdev_event() {
1) | fib_disable_ip() {
1) 1.284 us | fib_sync_down_dev();
1) | fib_flush() {
1) | fib_table_flush() {
1) 0.129 us | fib_release_info();
1) 0.351 us | fib_release_info();
1) 4.605 us | }
1) | fib_table_flush() {
1) 0.096 us | fib_release_info();
1) 0.255 us | fib_release_info();
1) 4.770 us | }
1) + 11.787 us | }
1) ! 315.273 us | }
1) ! 315.888 us | }
But there is no netlink message sent here.
Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that 200.0.0.0/24
routing entry?
Best Regards!
Zhu Yanjun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that routing entry?
2014-04-10 8:23 Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that routing entry? zhuyj
@ 2014-04-11 9:15 ` zhuyj
2014-04-11 18:30 ` Stephen Hemminger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: zhuyj @ 2014-04-11 9:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netdev, David S. Miller, ebiederm, ja, Yang, Zhangle (Eric),
Tao, Yue, Zadoyan, Grant, eric.dumazet, socketcan, hannes, cwang,
zhuyj
Hi, all
Please help to look at this problem. And give us an official
explanation. Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that
routing entry?
Thanks a lot.
Zhu Yanjun
On 04/10/2014 04:23 PM, zhuyj wrote:
> Hi, David
>
> With ubuntu 12.04, I run the following to reproduce this defect.
>
> 1) Configure an interface
> ifconfig eth1 150.0.0.1/24 up
>
> 2) Add routing entry via that interface address
> route add -net 200.0.0.0/24 gw 150.0.0.1
>
> 3) Change the ip address on that interface as shown below.
> ifconfig eth1 151.0.0.1/24 up
>
> 4) Check netlink messages with "ip monitor all". There is no route
> delete netlink message.
>
> [ADDR]Deleted 3: eth1 inet 150.0.0.1/24 brd 150.0.0.255 scope
> global eth1
> [ROUTE]Deleted 150.0.0.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src
> 150.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 150.0.0.255 dev eth1 table local proto
> kernel scope link src 150.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 150.0.0.0 dev eth1 table local proto
> kernel scope link src 150.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]Deleted local 150.0.0.1 dev eth1 table local proto kernel
> scope host src 150.0.0.1
> [NEIGH]224.0.0.251 dev eth1 lladdr 01:00:5e:00:00:fb NOARP
> [NEIGH]224.0.0.22 dev eth1 lladdr 01:00:5e:00:00:16 NOARP
> [ADDR]3: eth1 inet 151.0.0.1/16 brd 151.0.255.255 scope global eth1
> [ROUTE]local 151.0.0.1 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope
> host src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.255.255 dev eth1 table local proto kernel
> scope link src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]151.0.0.0/16 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.0.0 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope
> link src 151.0.0.1
> [ADDR]Deleted 3: eth1 inet 151.0.0.1/16 brd 151.0.255.255 scope
> global eth1
> [ROUTE]Deleted 151.0.0.0/16 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src
> 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 151.0.255.255 dev eth1 table local proto
> kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 151.0.0.0 dev eth1 table local proto
> kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]Deleted local 151.0.0.1 dev eth1 table local proto kernel
> scope host src 151.0.0.1
> [NEIGH]224.0.0.22 dev eth1 lladdr 01:00:5e:00:00:16 NOARP
> [ADDR]3: eth1 inet 151.0.0.1/24 brd 151.0.0.255 scope global eth1
> [ROUTE]local 151.0.0.1 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope
> host src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.0.255 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope
> link src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]151.0.0.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.0.0 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope
> link src 151.0.0.1
>
> There is no netlink message to notify that 200.0.0.0/24 is deleted.
> But in fact, this 200.0.0.0/24 route item disappears.
>
> I checked the source code, and I found the following is the process to
> delete static routes when the attached interface is deleted.
>
> 1) | fib_netdev_event() {
> 1) | fib_disable_ip() {
> 1) 1.284 us | fib_sync_down_dev();
> 1) | fib_flush() {
> 1) | fib_table_flush() {
> 1) 0.129 us | fib_release_info();
> 1) 0.351 us | fib_release_info();
> 1) 4.605 us | }
> 1) | fib_table_flush() {
> 1) 0.096 us | fib_release_info();
> 1) 0.255 us | fib_release_info();
> 1) 4.770 us | }
> 1) + 11.787 us | }
> 1) ! 315.273 us | }
> 1) ! 315.888 us | }
>
> But there is no netlink message sent here.
>
> Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that 200.0.0.0/24
> routing entry?
>
> Best Regards!
> Zhu Yanjun
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that routing entry?
2014-04-11 9:15 ` zhuyj
@ 2014-04-11 18:30 ` Stephen Hemminger
2014-04-16 10:50 ` zhuyj
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Hemminger @ 2014-04-11 18:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: zhuyj
Cc: netdev, David S. Miller, ebiederm, ja, Yang, Zhangle (Eric),
Tao, Yue, Zadoyan, Grant, eric.dumazet, socketcan, hannes, cwang
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 17:15:48 +0800
zhuyj <zyjzyj2000@gmail.com> wrote:
> > With ubuntu 12.04, I run the following to reproduce this defect.
> >
> > 1) Configure an interface
> > ifconfig eth1 150.0.0.1/24 up
> >
> > 2) Add routing entry via that interface address
> > route add -net 200.0.0.0/24 gw 150.0.0.1
> >
> > 3) Change the ip address on that interface as shown below.
> > ifconfig eth1 151.0.0.1/24 up
> >
> > 4) Check netlink messages with "ip monitor all". There is no route
> > delete netlink message.
> >
With IPv4 there are several cases where there is a non-notified
implicit route withdrawal. This is not something that can be fixed.
There are two issues:
1. with large backbone size route tables (ie 1M routes), the number
of notification messages becomes a bottleneck and would be unreliable
2. the existing routing daemons (quagga, bird, etc) all understand/expect
the existing semantics
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that routing entry?
2014-04-11 18:30 ` Stephen Hemminger
@ 2014-04-16 10:50 ` zhuyj
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: zhuyj @ 2014-04-16 10:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Hemminger
Cc: netdev, David S. Miller, ebiederm, ja, Yang, Zhangle (Eric),
Tao, Yue, Zadoyan, Grant, eric.dumazet, socketcan, hannes, cwang,
zhuyj
On 04/12/2014 02:30 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 17:15:48 +0800
> zhuyj <zyjzyj2000@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> With ubuntu 12.04, I run the following to reproduce this defect.
>>>
>>> 1) Configure an interface
>>> ifconfig eth1 150.0.0.1/24 up
>>>
>>> 2) Add routing entry via that interface address
>>> route add -net 200.0.0.0/24 gw 150.0.0.1
>>>
>>> 3) Change the ip address on that interface as shown below.
>>> ifconfig eth1 151.0.0.1/24 up
>>>
>>> 4) Check netlink messages with "ip monitor all". There is no route
>>> delete netlink message.
>>>
> With IPv4 there are several cases where there is a non-notified
> implicit route withdrawal. This is not something that can be fixed.
> There are two issues:
> 1. with large backbone size route tables (ie 1M routes), the number
> of notification messages becomes a bottleneck and would be unreliable
> 2. the existing routing daemons (quagga, bird, etc) all understand/expect
> the existing semantics
>
Hi,
Thanks a lot.
Best Regards!
Zhu Yanjun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-04-16 10:50 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-04-10 8:23 Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that routing entry? zhuyj
2014-04-11 9:15 ` zhuyj
2014-04-11 18:30 ` Stephen Hemminger
2014-04-16 10:50 ` zhuyj
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).