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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 11:19:38 -0600 From: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com> To: Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini05@...il.com> CC: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, shm@...ulusnetworks.com, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>, jtoppins@...ulusnetworks.com, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com, ddutt@...ulusnetworks.com, Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>, Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>, Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>, hadi@...atatu.com, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 3/6] net: Introduce VRF device driver - v2 Hi Sowmini: On 7/8/15 12:34 PM, Sowmini Varadhan wrote: > Perhaps I misunderstand the design proposal here, but a switch's VRF > is essentially just a separate routing table, whose input and output interfaces > are exclusively bound to the VRF. yes, and this model follows that. > > Can an application in the model above get visibiltiy into the (enslaved?) > interfaces in the vrf? yes. e.g., 'ip link show' prints the vrf device it is enslaved to: 6: swp3: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,SLAVE> mtu 1500 qdisc noop master vrf10 state DOWN mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000 link/ether 52:54:00:12:35:03 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff 7: swp4: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,SLAVE> mtu 1500 qdisc noop master vrf10 state DOWN mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000 link/ether 52:54:00:12:35:04 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff 8: swp5: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,SLAVE> mtu 1500 qdisc noop master vrf10 state DOWN mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000 link/ether 52:54:00:12:35:05 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff 9: swp6: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,SLAVE> mtu 1500 qdisc noop master vrf10 state DOWN mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000 > Can an application use IP_PKTINFO to send a packet out of > a specific interface on a selected VRF? What about receiving > IP_PKTINFO about input interface? On the to-do list to use cmsg to specify a VRF for outbound packets using non-connected sockets. I do not believe it is going to work, but need to look into it. > What about setting ipsec policy for interfaces in the vrf? > similarly, need to look at ipsec use cases with this vrf model. David -- 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