netdev - Re: [RFC net-next 0/3] Proposal for VRF-lite

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150612094659.GB5289@pox.localdomain>
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:46:59 +0200
From:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To:	Shrijeet Mukherjee <shm@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@...atatu.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Jon Toppins <jtoppins@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/3] Proposal for VRF-lite

On 06/10/15 at 01:43pm, Shrijeet Mukherjee wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:15 AM, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch> wrote:
> > Do I understand this correctly that swp* represent veth pairs?
> > Why do you have distinct addresses on each peer of the pair?
> > Are the addresses in N2 and N3 considered private and NATed?
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >
> ???These are physical boxes in the picture not veth pairs or NAT's :)???

I see. So if I translate this to a virtual world with veths where
the guest facing peer is in its own netns, the host facing veth
peer would get attached to a vrf device and we should be good.

> ???Are you worried about ip rule scale ? this reduces the scale to number of
> L3 domains, which should be not that large. I do think we need to speed up
> rule lookup from the linear walk we have right now.

I definitely have more L3 domains than what a linear search can
handle.

> A generic classifier seems like a bigger hammer, but if that is the way to
> replace rules it is a worthy concept.
> 
> That said, the patches from Hannes et al, will make it such that the table
> lookup maybe from the driver directly and thus will skip past the fib rule
> lookup.

The approach from Hannes definitely works for the physical world
but is undesirable for overlays, logical or encapsulations, where
we want to avoid maintaining a net_device for every virtual network.

As I said, I think this is something that can be resolved later on
with a programmable classifier.
--
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