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]
Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 14:45:56 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     Alexis Bauvin <abauvin@...leway.com>, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, akherbouche@...leway.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 0/3] Add VRF support for VXLAN underlay

On 11/20/18 7:23 AM, Alexis Bauvin wrote:
> We are trying to isolate the VXLAN traffic from different VMs with VRF as shown
> in the schemas below:
> 
> +-------------------------+   +----------------------------+
> | +----------+            |   |     +------------+         |
> | |          |            |   |     |            |         |
> | | tap-red  |            |   |     |  tap-blue  |         |
> | |          |            |   |     |            |         |
> | +----+-----+            |   |     +-----+------+         |
> |      |                  |   |           |                |
> |      |                  |   |           |                |
> | +----+---+              |   |      +----+----+           |
> | |        |              |   |      |         |           |
> | | br-red |              |   |      | br-blue |           |
> | |        |              |   |      |         |           |
> | +----+---+              |   |      +----+----+           |
> |      |                  |   |           |                |
> |      |                  |   |           |                |
> |      |                  |   |           |                |
> | +----+--------+         |   |     +--------------+       |
> | |             |         |   |     |              |       |
> | |  vxlan-red  |         |   |     |  vxlan-blue  |       |
> | |             |         |   |     |              |       |
> | +------+------+         |   |     +-------+------+       |
> |        |                |   |             |              |
> |        |           VRF  |   |             |          VRF |
> |        |           red  |   |             |         blue |
> +-------------------------+   +----------------------------+

Roopa and I were discussing this setup and are puzzled by the VRF
association here. Does br-red and br-blue have an address? The commands
below do not show it and from our perspective seems odd for this
scenario. If it does not have an address, then there is no reason for
the VRF labeling.

Also, it would be good to have a unit test this case. Can you create a
shell script that creates the setup and runs a few tests verifying
connectivity? You can use network namespaces and veth pairs in place of
the VM with a tap device. From there the functionality is the same.
Tests can be initial VRF association for the vxlan lower device,
changing the VRF to another device, and then changing again back to
default VRF - checking proper connectivity for each.

Thanks

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ