Date:	Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:22:18 +0900
From:	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki/吉藤英明 
	<hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>
To:	Ulf Samuelsson <ulf.samuelsson@...csson.com>,
	yzhu1 <Yanjun.Zhu@...driver.com>, brian.haley@...com,
	davem@...emloft.net, alexandre.dietsch@...driver.com,
	clinton.slabbert@...driver.com, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
	jmorris@...ei.org, kaber@...sh.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
CC:	hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com,
	"YOSHIFUJI Hideaki (USAGI Project)" <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/1] neighbour: Support broadcast ARP in neighbor PROPE
 state

Hi,

Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> On 03/18/2015 11:34 AM, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki/吉藤英明 wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/12/2015 09:42 AM, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote:
>>>> Hello.
>>>>
>>>> yzhu1 wrote:
>>>>> The state machine is in the attachment.
>>>>>My proposal is rather fix my ancient mistake.

>>>>> Best Regards!
>>>>> Zhu Yanjun
>>>>> On 03/12/2015 02:58 PM, Zhu Yanjun wrote:
>>>>>> V2:
>>>>>>    set ARP_PROBE_BCAST default N.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> V1:
>>>>>>    Have a problem with an HP router at a certain location, which
>>>>>>    is configured to only answer to broadcast ARP requests.
>>>>>>    That cannot be changed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    The first ARP request the kernel sends out, is a broadcast request,
>>>>>>    which is fine, but after the reply, the kernel sends unicast requests,
>>>>>>    which will not get any replies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    The ARP entry will after some time enter STALE state,
>>>>>>    and if nothing is done it will time out, and be removed.
>>>>>>    This process takes to long, and I have been told that it is
>>>>>>    difficult to makes changes that will eventually remove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Have tried to change the state from STALE to INCOMPLETE, which failed,
>>>>>>    and then tried to change the state to PROBE which also failed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    The stack is only sending out unicasts, and never broadcast.
>>>>>>    Is there any way to get the stack to send out a broadcast ARP
>>>>>>    without having to wait for the entry to be removed?
>>>>
>>>> Neighbour subsystem will send multicast probes after unicast
>>>> probes in NUD_PROBE state if mcast_solicit is more than
>>>> ucast_solicit.  Try setting net.ipv4.neigh.*.ucast_solicit to
>>>> the value less than net.ipv4.neigh.*.mcast_solicit, please?
>>>> e.g.
>>>>
>>>> net.ipv4.neigh.eth0.mcast_solicit = 3
>>>> net.ipv4.neigh.eth0.ucast_solicit = 1
>>>>
>>>> --yoshfuji
>>>>
>>> I dont see how, and I would like to focus on code discussion.
>>>
>>> Below is simplified pseudo code of the timer handler
>>> after you have reached REACHABLE the first time.
>>>
>>>      "mcast_solicit" is not used at all.
>>>
>>> It is only used when in INCOMPLETE state as far as I can tell.
>>
>> OK, I found I made this change in 2003:
>>
>> From d12fd76789e80ae337408834f45dae7cba23fc55 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Hideaki Yoshifuji <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
>> Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 23:32:45 +1000
>> Subject: [PATCH] [NET] Send only unicast NSs in PROBE state.
>>
>> ---
>>  net/core/neighbour.c | 4 +++-
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/core/neighbour.c b/net/core/neighbour.c
>> index c640ad5..001fdb4 100644
>> --- a/net/core/neighbour.c
>> +++ b/net/core/neighbour.c
>> @@ -608,7 +608,9 @@ next_elt:
>>  static __inline__ int neigh_max_probes(struct neighbour *n)
>>  {
>>      struct neigh_parms *p = n->parms;
>> -    return p->ucast_probes + p->app_probes + p->mcast_probes;
>> +    return (n->nud_state & NUD_PROBE ?
>> +        p->ucast_probes :
>> +        p->ucast_probes + p->app_probes + p->mcast_probes);
>>  }
>>
>>
>> As I recall, I was hesitating adding new sysctl knob, but now I am
>> okay to have knob to enable mcast probes in PROBE state as well.
>> (By default, it should NOT send multicast probe (expecially for IPv6)
>> in PROBE state.)
>>
>> How about these?
>> - introduce probe_mcast_probes knob, default to 0.
>> - Change neigh_max_probes() to reflect that.
>>
>> Then, arp_colisit() and ndict_solicit() should send multicast probes
>> in PROBE state as well, if probe_mcast_probes is set to positive
>> value.
>>
>> Will this work for you?
>>
>> Regards,
>
> "probe_mcast_probes" as a name sucks...
>
> It is also confusing since it is doing something very similar to
> ucast_solicit, app_solicit and mcast_solicit.
>
> As I see it, it should be named "<XXX>_solicit" to show
> how it is related to the rest of the sysctl entries.
>
> If XXX is "bcast", as in my suggestion, is less important.
>
> "mcast_probe_solicit" would work for me, but prefer "bcast_solicit".

Sorry, I meant "probe_mcast_solicit", as you see, which denotes
"mcast_solicit" in PROBE state.  I do not prefer "bcast" because
1) it is not a broadcast for IPv6 and 2) it is not descriptive
about the affected state.

> Your suggestion was my initial suggestion for solution, and after consideration
> by Wind River reviewers it was rejected, since it affected IPv6.
> Did not check in what way.

The "probe_mcast_solicit" variable can be (and MUST be) set per
interface, per protocol basis, so I do not think it will affect
IPv6 if the variable is set properly, and it should be done by
default.

>
> The WR proposed solution, which is the one that was sent to the list,
> was to keep neigh_max_probes as is, but add check for "bcast_solicit" inside
> the timer handler, which they think makes sure that it affects IPv4 processing only.

Please do not do this; it becomes more complex.

Thanks.

--yoshfuji
--
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