Re: v6/sit tunnels and VRFs

[Jeff Barnhill <0xeffeff@gmail.com>]

Thanks, David.  Those slides are extremely helpful.

Also, I ran into a bug that manifested on big endian architecture:

diff --git i/drivers/net/vrf.c w/drivers/net/vrf.c
index b23bb2fae5f8..a5f984689aee 100644
--- i/drivers/net/vrf.c
+++ w/drivers/net/vrf.c
@@ -1130,7 +1130,7 @@ static int vrf_fib_rule(const struct net_device
*dev, __u8 family, bool add_it)
        frh->family = family;
        frh->action = FR_ACT_TO_TBL;

-       if (nla_put_u32(skb, FRA_L3MDEV, 1))
+       if (nla_put_u8(skb, FRA_L3MDEV, 1))
                goto nla_put_failure;

        if (nla_put_u32(skb, FRA_PRIORITY, FIB_RULE_PREF))

I was surprised that nlmsg_parse in fib_nl_newrule() didn't pick this
up, but I verified that the received value for this attribute was 0,
not 1 (w/o the patch).

Jeff



On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 11:48 AM, David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/27/17 8:43 PM, Jeff Barnhill wrote:
>> ping v4 loopback...
>>
>> jeff@VM2:~$ ip route list vrf myvrf
>> 127.0.0.0/8 dev myvrf proto kernel scope link src 127.0.0.1
>> 192.168.200.0/24 via 192.168.210.3 dev enp0s8
>> 192.168.210.0/24 dev enp0s8 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.210.2
>>
>> Lookups shown in perf script were for table 255.  Is it necessary to
>> put the l3mdev table first?  If I re-order the tables, it starts
>> working:
>
> Yes, we advise moving the local table down to avoid false hits (e.g.,
> duplicate addresses like this between the default VRF and another VRF).
>
> I covered that and a few other things at OSS 2017. Latest VRF slides for
> users:
>   http://schd.ws/hosted_files/ossna2017/fe/vrf-tutorial-oss.pdf