netdev - Re: bond interface arp, vlan and trunk / network question

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:15:53 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	stefan novak <lms.brubaker@...il.com>
CC:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: bond interface arp, vlan and trunk / network question

stefan novak a écrit :
>>        I believe you're seeing the expected behavior from arping here,
>> and it does not automatically indicate that anything is wrong.
>>
>>        It's very possible that your network topology is such that
>> arping -I bond0 won't work while arping -I bond0.600 does.  If the
>> target you specify is reachable only on the VLAN, it's expected behavior
>> that arping -I bond0 of that target won't work (because the interface
>> bond0 is not attached to the VLAN, only bond0.600 is).  That doesn't
>> mean that the ARPs generated internally by bonding are untagged /
>> failing, as bonding itself adds VLAN tags to its own ARP probes as
>> needed.
> 
> Ok. I've checked the tcpdump's on the machines and I think something is working.
> 
> tcpdump  -v -i eth0 arp
> tcpdump: WARNING: eth0: no IPv4 address assigned
> tcpdump: listening on eth0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
> 22:56:38.817599 arp who-has 172.21.0.254 tell 172.21.0.1
> 22:56:38.847597 arp who-has 172.21.0.254 tell 172.21.0.1
> 22:56:38.877598 arp who-has 172.21.0.254 tell 172.21.0.1
> 22:56:38.907596 arp who-has 172.21.0.254 tell 172.21.0.1
> 
> tcpdump  -v -i bond0.600 arp
> tcpdump: listening on bond0.600, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture
> size 96 bytes
> 22:56:49.167157 arp reply 172.21.0.254 is-at 00:1d:70:d1:ad:83 (oui Unknown)
> 22:56:49.197162 arp reply 172.21.0.254 is-at 00:1d:70:d1:ad:83 (oui Unknown)
> 22:56:49.227130 arp reply 172.21.0.254 is-at 00:1d:70:d1:ad:83 (oui Unknown)
> 22:56:49.257144 arp reply 172.21.0.254 is-at 00:1d:70:d1:ad:83 (oui Unknown)
> 
> the arp's are sent out on eth0 and recieved via bond0.600. When they
> are sent on eth0 then the switch must tag the vlan600 (private vlan).

Ah, you setup eth0 or bond0 with an IP ?

bond driver does a route loookup to find out if a vlan tag is necessary or not
when issuing an arp request.

So check result of : "ip route get 172.21.0.254"


> Then they come in at the right interface. Is it normal that so many
> arp's are sent?

you setup a 30 ms interval, so you get what you asked for :)

> Is there a way to check if the arp check is working right in the proc
> fs oder something like that?
> 
>>        Also, are you running multiple blades with bonding behind the
>> same set of switches?
> 
> Yes, 14 blades with 2 seperate(not connected) switches.
> 
>>  If you are, you probably want to set the
>> arp_validate option to either "active" or "all", as the default setting
>> (none) relies only on the existance of traffic on the slaves, and
>> doesn't check the source of that traffic.  The end result of that is the
>> probes from multiple bonding instances fool one another into thinking
>> the path is up, when it is not.  With arp_validate enabled, it'll check
>> that the slaves are actually receiving their own ARP traffic.
> 
> Ok, sounds right for me. I've set the arp_validate option to "all".

Please give us :

ifconfig -a


--
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