From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A04BC3A5A2 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 15:57:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CACAE208C3 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 15:57:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=candelatech.com header.i=@candelatech.com header.b="bWtq/9sA" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2404805AbfITP5X (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Sep 2019 11:57:23 -0400 Received: from mail2.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.173]:47804 "EHLO mail3.candelatech.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2404456AbfITP5W (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Sep 2019 11:57:22 -0400 Received: from [192.168.100.195] (50-251-239-81-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.251.239.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.candelatech.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 33FD513C2BA for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 08:57:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail3.candelatech.com 33FD513C2BA DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=candelatech.com; s=default; t=1568995042; bh=vygwi+t+J8mPPiuvFf/wdtVQBGXCqERQLErn0RKtENs=; h=Subject:From:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=bWtq/9sABlPbAyLFyUKbOwdQqhMURQgNlEgnPj76nMHji9iFc5ILclvvxmHTBze4B p+4oNyoD7E1AGkEkP1gxJIo3eTr595VBK563TwOyB29EFGUyFRKu/PeSa2chKeYlnB Dssv17SU2SGkHZTnwt5rFQfXrGLip5S+WNFtiq3g= Subject: Re: Strange routing with VRF and 5.2.7+ From: Ben Greear To: netdev References: <91749b17-7800-44c0-d137-5242b8ceb819@candelatech.com> <51aae991-a320-43be-bf73-8b8c0ffcba60@candelatech.com> Organization: Candela Technologies Message-ID: <7d1de949-5cf0-cb74-6ca3-52315c34a340@candelatech.com> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 08:57:21 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <51aae991-a320-43be-bf73-8b8c0ffcba60@candelatech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On 9/10/19 6:08 PM, Ben Greear wrote: > On 9/10/19 3:17 PM, Ben Greear wrote: >> Today we were testing creating 200 virtual station vdevs on ath9k, and using >> VRF for the routing. > > Looks like the same issue happens w/out VRF, but there I have oodles of routing > rules, so it is an area ripe for failure. > > Will upgrade to 5.2.14+ and retest, and try 4.20 as well.... Turns out, this was ipsec (strongswan) inserting a rule that pointed to a table that we then used for a vrf w/out realizing the rule was added. Stopping strongswan and/or reconfiguring how routing tables are assigned resolved the issue. Thanks, Ben > > Thanks, > Ben > >> >> This really slows down the machine in question. >> >> During the minutes that it takes to bring these up and configure them, >> we loose network connectivity on the management port. >> >> If I do 'ip route show', it just shows the default route out of eth0, and >> the subnet route.  But, if I try to ping the gateway, I get an ICMP error >> coming back from the gateway of one of the virtual stations (which should be >> safely using VRFs and so not in use when I do a plain 'ping' from the shell). >> >> I tried running tshark on eth0 in the background and running ping, and it captures >> no packets leaving eth0. >> >> After some time (and during this time, my various scripts will be (re)configuring >> vrfs and stations and related vrf routing tables and such, >> but should *not* be messing with the main routing table, then suddenly >> things start working again. >> >> I am curious if anyone has seen anything similar or has suggestions for more >> ways to debug this.  It seems reproducible, but it is a pain to >> debug. >> >> Thanks, >> Ben >> > > -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com