Message-ID: <529F7336.1000007@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:23:50 -0500
From:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
To:	Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@...chi.franken.de>
CC:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
	Sun Paul <paulrbk@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, Karl Heiss <kheiss@...il.com>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Supporting 4 way connections in LKSCTP

On 12/04/2013 11:25 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2013, at 5:12 PM, Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 12/04/2013 11:01 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
>>> On Dec 4, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/04/2013 09:50 AM, David Laight wrote:
>>>>>>> In normal operation, IP-A sends INIT to IP-X, IP-X returns INIT_ACK to
>>>>>>> IP-A. IP-A then sends HB to IP-X, IP-X then returns HB_ACK to IP-A. In
>>>>>>> the meantime, IP-B sends HB to IP-Y and IPY returns HB_ACK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In case of the path between IP-A and IP-X is broken, IP-B sends INIT
>>>>>>> to IP-X, NODE-B uses IP-Y to return INIT_ACK to IP-B. Then IP-B sends
>>>>>>> HB to IP-X, and IP-Y returns HB_ACK to IP-B. In the meantime, the HB
>>>>>>> communication between IP-B and IP-Y follows the normal flow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can I confirm, is it really valid?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As long as NODE-B knows about both IP-A and IP-B, and NODE-A knows about
>>>>>> both IP-X and IP-Y (meaning all the addresses were exchanged inside INIT
>>>>>> and INIT-ACK), then this situation is perfectly valid.  In fact, this
>>>>>> has been tested an multiple interops.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are some network configurations that do cause problems.
>>>>> Consider 4 systems with 3 LAN segments:
>>>>> A) 10.10.10.1 on LAN X and 192.168.1.1 on LAN Y.
>>>>> B) 10.10.10.2 on LAN X and 192.168.1.2 on LAN Y.
>>>>> C) 10.10.10.3 on LAN X.
>>>>> D) 10.10.10.4 on LAN X and 192.168.1.2 on LAN Z.
>>>>> There are no routers between the networks (and none of the systems
>>>>> are running IP forwarding).
>>>>>
>>>>> If A connects to B everything is fine - traffic can use either LAN.
>>>>>
>>>>> Connections from A to C are problematic if C tries to send anything
>>>>> (except a HB) to 192.168.1.1 before receiving a HB response.
>>>>> One of the SCTP stacks we've used did send messages to an
>>>>> inappropriate address, but I've forgotten which one.
>>>>
>>>> I guess that would be problematic if A can not receive traffic for
>>>> 192.168.1.1 on the interface connected to LAN X.  I shouldn't
>>>> technically be a problem for C as it should mark the path to 192.168.1.1
>>>> as down.  For A, as long as it doesn't decide to ABORT the association,
>>>> it shouldn't be a problem either.  It would be interesting to know more
>>>> about what problems you've observed.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Connections between A and D fail unless the HB errors A receives
>>>>> for 192.168.1.2 are ignored.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this configuration is very error prone, especially if system B and
>>>> system D are up at the same time.  Any attempts by system A to use
>>>> LAN Y will result in an ABORT generated by system B.  I have seen
>>>> this issue well in production and we had to renumber system D to solve
>>>> it.
>>> The point is that address scoping should be used. When sending an
>>> INIT from 10.10.10.1 to 10.10.10.4 you should not list 192.168.1.1,
>>> since you are transmitting an address to a node which might or might
>>> not "be in the same scope". We had IDs for that in the past, but
>>> they never made it to RFC state, because they were not progressed enough
>>> by the authors. Maybe we should push them again...
>>
>> But these 2 are technically in the same scope.  They are both private
>> address types.  Also, this will not solve the problem either since
> That is correct. But I think you should not transfer a private address
> to another private address belonging to a different network.
> I don't think this was specified in the older IDs...
>> the configured addresses could be:
>> System A) 10.0.0.1 on Lan X, 10.10.0.1 on Lan Y
>> System B) 10.0.0.2 on Lan X, 10.10.0.2 on Lan Y
>> System C) 10.0.0.3 on Lan X, 10.10.0.2 on Lan Z
>>
>> Same problem will occur.
> Depending on the subnet masks, it might work not not. Are you
> configuring them with /8? 

No, /16 :).  With that, Sys A talking to Sys C will get an abort
from Sys B when trying to talk to 10.10.0.2.  With /8, it'll be
even worse since SysB and SysC will have duplicate addresses
within the subnet. :)

The point is that you don't always know that the same private subnet
is in reality 2 different subnets with duplicate addresses.

I've had to debug an actual production issue similar to this where
customer had a very similar configuration to above, and their
associations kept getting aborted.  When I tried accessing the
system that kept sending aborts, I found it was some windows
server and not a Diameter station they were expecting.

>>
>> Btw, were there any IDs other then draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctp-ipv4?
> Yes, one for IPv6.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctpipv6-01
> They need to be integrated and improved...
> 

Ok.  I'll take a look.

Thanks
-vlad

> Best regards
> Michael
>>
>> Thanks
>> -vlad
>>
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>> -vlad
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course the application could explicitly bind to only the 10.x address
>>>>> but that requires the application know the exact network topology
>>>>> and may be difficult for incoming calls.
>>>>>
>>>>> 	David
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 

--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists