netdev - Re: question about 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>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <568D3E3C.2030301@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:	Wed, 6 Jan 2016 09:18:04 -0700
From:	David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:	roy.qing.li@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: question about vrf-lite

On 1/6/16 2:53 AM, roy.qing.li@...il.com wrote:
> Hi David Ahern:
>
> when I test vrf-lite, I meet a question, could you help me?
>
> the envirnment is below:
>                                                   N2
>             N1 (all configs here)          +---------------+
>      +--------------+                      |               |
>      |              |                      |               |
>      |eth0 :10.0.2.1+----------------------+eth0 :10.0.2.2 |
>      |              |                      +---------------+
>      | VRF 1        |
>      | table 5      |
>      |              |
>      +---------------+
>      |              |
>      | VRF 2        |                             N3
>      | table 6      |                      +---------------+
>      |              |                      |               |
>      |eth1 :10.0.2.1+----------------------+eth0 :10.0.2.2 |
>      +--------------+                      +---------------+
>
> and configuration on N1 is below:
>
> ip link add vrf1 type vrf table 5
> ip link add vrf2 type vrf table 6
> ip rule add pref 200 oif vrf1 lookup 5
> ip rule add pref 200 iif vrf1 lookup 5
> ip rule add pref 200 oif vrf2 lookup 6
> ip rule add pref 200 iif vrf2 lookup 6
> ip link set vrf1 up
> ip link set vrf2 up
> ip link set eth0 master vrf1
> ip link set eth1 master vrf2
>
> the route information is below:
>
> # ip route get 10.0.2.2 oif vrf1
> 10.0.2.2 dev eth0  table 5  src 10.0.2.1
>      cache
> #
> # ip route get 10.0.2.2 oif vrf2
> 10.0.2.2 dev eth1  table 6  src 10.0.2.1
>      cache
> #
> #uname -r
> 4.4.0-rc5
> #
>
> when run the ping with different interfaces on N1, I expect
> "ping -I vrf1 10.0.2.2" send to/receive from packets with N2,
> "ping -I vrf2 10.0.2.2" send to/receive from packets with N3,
>
> but I found whether the interface is vrf1 or vrf2, the packets always
> is sent out through eth0, N2 reply; and no packets sent out through
> eth1.
>
> is it right?

no. The above works fine for me. I literally copied and pasted all of 
the commands except the master ones which were adapted to my setup -- 
eth9 and eth11 for me instead of eth0 and eth1. tcpdump on N2, N3 show 
the right one is receiving packets based on which 'ping -I vrf<N>' is run.

Do tables 5 and 6 have the right routes?
--
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