netdev - Re: VRFs and the scalability of namespaces

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 29 Sep 2014 18:15:07 -0700
From:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
	Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini05@...il.com>
CC:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: VRFs and the scalability of namespaces



On 09/29/2014 04:50 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014, at 01:43, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 9/29/14, 11:00 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
>>> On 09/29/2014 09:50 AM, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 09/29/2014 06:06 AM, David Ahern wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We have implemented support for at least most of this (excepting duplicate IPs)
>>>>> using routing tables, rules, and (optionally, xorp as the router).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My undertanding of multiple routing-tables/rules was that they
>>>> are closer in semantics to switch/router ACLs than to VRFs, eg.,
>>>> one big difference is that an interface can belong to exactly one
>>>> VRF at a time, which is not mandated by multiple routing-tables/rules.
>>>>
>>>> Was I mistaken?
>>>
>>> You can effectively force an interface to belong to a particular virtual
>>> router (table).  It is not trivial to do, and possibly I have still not
>>> covered every possible case.  Some rules grow somewhat exponentially as
>>> interfaces are added to virtual routers (ie, preference 10 rules).
>>
>> An interesting way of doing it; thanks for the reference point.
>>
>> Fundamentally the design should be able to assign interfaces to a single
>> VRF, support duplicate IP addresses on different interfaces in different
>> VRFs and be able to scale to 10,000+ netdevices -- devices representing
>> physical ports as well as logical interfaces built on top of them (e.g.,
>> sub-interfaces).
>
> Duplicate IP addresses don't go well with current linux stack being a
> soft end model by default. Current separation is done on arp level today
> if some kind of strong end model is desired. This calls for some kind of
> namespaces again. ;)

arp is per interface as well if you set arp-filter properly, the main problem with duplicate IPs is that
you can't (easily?) set up routing rules that match them properly...

Thanks,
Ben

>
> Bye,
> Hannes
>

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html