From: Olivier Brunel <jjk@jjacky.com>
To: David Ahern <dsa@cumulusnetworks.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bug w/ (policy) routing
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 20:52:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170101205238.426803f4@jjacky.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3575dc1f-d536-20d2-24b9-a1e95a5c795b@cumulusnetworks.com>
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 13:15:44 -0700
David Ahern <dsa@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> On 12/30/16 4:00 PM, Olivier Brunel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > (Please cc me as I'm not subscribed to the list, thanks.)
> >
> > I'm trying to set things up using some policy routing, and having
> > some weird issues I can't really explain. It looks to me like there
> > might be a bug somewhere...
> >
> > This is done under Arch Linux 64bits, iproute2 4.9.0 (`ip -V` says
> > ip utility, iproute2-ss161212), kernel 4.8.13
> >
> > Basically here's what I could reduce it to:
> > - create a new network namespace, create a pair of veth devices:
> > one in there, one sent back to the original namespace
> > - I'm giving them IPs 10.4.0.1 (original namespace) & 10.4.0.2 (new
> > namespace)
> > - in that new namespace, I'm trying to add a route to 10.4.0.1, but
> > inside a new table. I also want a default route via 10.4.0.1 on
> > the table main. It seems to work, only not really...
> >
> > It's not very easy to describe so hopefully this will make things
> > clearer:
> >
> > $ sudo unshare -n sh
>
> The main and local fib tables start merged into a single fib_table
> instance.
>
> > sh-4.4# ip rule add table 50 prio 50
> > sh-4.4# ip link add test type veth peer name test2
> > sh-4.4# ip addr add 10.4.0.2 dev test
> > sh-4.4# ip link set dev test up
> > sh-4.4# ip link set netns 1 dev test2
> > # back in original namespace, we add 10.4.0.1 to test2 and bring it
> > up
> >
> > sh-4.4# ip route add 10.4.0.1 dev test table 50
> > sh-4.4# ip route add default via 10.4.0.1 dev test
> > sh-4.4# ip route flush cache
> > sh-4.4# ip rule
> > 0: from all lookup local
> > 50: from all lookup 50
> > 32766: from all lookup main
> > 32767: from all lookup default
> > sh-4.4# ip route show table 50
> > 10.4.0.1 dev test scope link
> > sh-4.4# ip route get 10.4.0.1
> > 10.4.0.1 via 10.4.0.1 dev test table local src 10.4.0.2
> > cache
> > # !?? why isn't table 50 used as, I believe, it should. And why
>
> The default rule set has the local table at priority 0 so all lookups
> hit that table first:
>
> # ip ru ls
> 0: from all lookup local
> 32766: from all lookup main
> 32767: from all lookup default
>
> For some reason it hits a match doing the lookup in the merged
> local/main fib_table for this ip route get.
>
> > does adding a rule "fixes" it :
> >
> > sh-4.4# ip rule add prio 55555
>
> Adding this rule causes the local and main tables to be split into
> actual separate fib tables. Doing so causes the lookup in the local
> table to fail, so the lookup continues to the next rule -- which is
> your prio 50 table 50 rule.
>
> I did not look into why the earlier rule addition did not cause the
> unmerge to happen -- it should have.
Thanks, (I feel like) I understand what's happening now.
> > sh-4.4# ip route get 10.4.0.1
> > 10.4.0.1 dev test table 50 src 10.4.0.2
> > cache
> > # deleting the new rule makes no difference. It could even have been
> > done right after adding it. It's like it just triggered something
> > (reload, cache flushed, ...)
> > As seen I did flush cached routes as mentionned in the man page, I
> > don't know of anything else that would need done to "refresh"
> > things?
> >
> > Any ideas as to why this is happening? Should this work as I expect
> > it, or is there anything I'm doing wrong?
>
> For your purposes now this should fix the problem for you:
>
> ip ru del from all lookup local
> ip ru add prio 32765 from all lookup local
Indeed, if I first delete the rule for lookup local and recreate it
w/ higher prio than my "lookup 50", then no more issue.
Thanks a lot!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-01 19:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-30 23:00 Bug w/ (policy) routing Olivier Brunel
2016-12-31 20:15 ` David Ahern
2017-01-01 19:52 ` Olivier Brunel [this message]
2017-01-02 16:48 ` David Ahern
2017-01-02 17:05 ` Olivier Brunel
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=20170101205238.426803f4@jjacky.com \
--to=jjk@jjacky.com \
--cc=dsa@cumulusnetworks.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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 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).