netdev - Re: v6/sit tunnels and VRFs

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: <fc420b5d-f179-a1fb-9cf5-ce1820870c83@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Oct 2017 15:31:35 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Jeff Barnhill <0xeffeff@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: v6/sit tunnels and VRFs

On 10/25/17 2:45 PM, Jeff Barnhill wrote:
> Are v6/sit tunnels working with VRFs?
> 
> For instance, I have a very simple configuration with three VMs
> running 4.13.0-16 (Ubuntu Server 17.10) kernels.  VM3 is setup as a
> router for separation.  VM1 and VM2 have static routes to each other
> via VM3.  All VMs have v4 interfaces configured.  If I setup a sit
> tunnel with v6 addrs from V1 to V2, tunneled data flows as expected
> (verified with ping) and can be seen via tcpdump on VM3.  However, if
> I create a VRF on VM2 and enslave the v4 interface and tunnel to that
> VRF, data does not leave VM2 and ping displays "Destination Host
> Unreachable".  I did verify that basic v4 ping works between VM1 and
> VM2 with the v4 interface on VM2 enslaved to VRF device.
> 
> If this should work, I can provide more details with configuration commands.

Please provide configuration details and I'll take a look