From: Vincent Bernat <vincent@bernat.im>
To: David Ahern <dsa@cumulusnetworks.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>,
Wilson Kok <wkok@cumulusnetworks.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net v1] fib_rules: interface group matching
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:14:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a8fapl7l.fsf@zoro.exoscale.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e8df55df-c22f-19a3-fabc-5fb592433706@cumulusnetworks.com> (David Ahern's message of "Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:39:15 -0600")
❦ 14 septembre 2016 16:39 CEST, David Ahern <dsa@cumulusnetworks.com> :
>>>> When a user wants to assign a routing table to a group of incoming
>>>> interfaces, the current solutions are:
>>>>
>>>> - one IP rule for each interface (scalability problems)
>>>> - use of fwmark and devgroup matcher (don't work with internal route
>>>> lookups, used for example by RPF)
>>>> - use of VRF devices (more complex)
>>>
>>> Why do you believe that? A VRF is a formalized grouping of interfaces
>>> that includes an API for locally generated traffic to specify which
>>> VRF/group to use. And, with the l3mdev rule you only need 1 rule for
>>> all VRFs regardless of the number which is the best solution to the
>>> scalability problem of adding rules per device/group/VRF.
>>>
>>> What use case are trying to solve?
>>
>> Local processes have to be made aware of the VRF by binding to the
>> pseudo-device. Some processes may be tricked by LD_PRELOAD but some
>> won't (like stuff written in Go). Maybe I should just find a better way
>> to bind a process to a VRF without its cooperation.
>
> What API are you using for interface groups? How does an app tell the
> kernel to use interface group 1 versus group 2?
In my testbed, I have only one local application which is dnsmasq as a
DHCP server. It sends back the answer to the physical interface (with
sendmsg() and auxillary data). So it makes my argument a bit moot as the
situation is in fact worse without VRF. :-/
My testbed is here (with use of VRF, more recent commits just use plain
ip rules):
https://github.com/vincentbernat/network-lab/blob/d86e9ed658863ef0f51d7b853d0dc9f8b7427b21/lab-l3-hyperv/setup
I could just give more time to VRF. I also had some concerns over
performance with the way Netfilter integration is done, but I understand
that I could just stay away from POSTROUTING rules which is the only
hook executed twice?
--
All things that are, are with more spirit chased than enjoyed.
-- Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice"
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-14 15:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-14 12:40 [net v1] fib_rules: interface group matching Vincent Bernat
2016-09-14 12:43 ` Vincent Bernat
2016-09-14 14:15 ` David Ahern
2016-09-14 14:25 ` Vincent Bernat
2016-09-14 14:39 ` David Ahern
2016-09-14 15:14 ` Vincent Bernat [this message]
2016-09-14 15:25 ` David Ahern
2016-09-14 16:01 ` Vincent Bernat
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=87a8fapl7l.fsf@zoro.exoscale.ch \
--to=vincent@bernat.im \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsa@cumulusnetworks.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com \
--cc=wkok@cumulusnetworks.com \
/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