[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d10e40ae062903f15e84c7e3890a0b40@maddes.net>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 22:23:03 +0200
From: "M. Buecher" <maddes+kernel@...des.net>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
Matthias May <matthias.may@...atec.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: IP-Aliasing for IPv6?
On 2019-05-15 11:26, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 08:49:12PM +0200, M. Buecher wrote:
>> According to the documentation [1] "IP-Aliasing" is an obsolete way to
>> manage multiple IP[v4]-addresses/masks on an interface.
>> For having multiple IP[v4]-addresses on an interface this is
>> absolutely
>> true.
>>
>> For me "IP-Aliasing" is still a valid, good and easy way to "group" ip
>> addresses to run multiple instances of the same service with different
>> IPs
>> via virtual interfaces on a single physical NIC.
>>
>> Short story:
>> I recently added IPv6 to my LAN setup and recognized that IP-Aliasing
>> is not
>> support by the kernel.
>> Could IP-Aliasing support for IPv6 be added to the kernel?
>
> You should probably better explain what is the feature you are using
> with IPv4 but you are missing for IPv6. The actual IP aliasing has been
> removed in kernel 2.2, i.e. 20 years ago. Since then, there is no IP
> aliasing even for IPv4. What exactly works for IPv4 but does not for
> IPv6?
Used feature is the label option of `ip`, which works for IPv4, but not
with IPv6.
Goal: Use virtual interfaces to run separate instances of a service on
different IP addresses on the same machine.
For example with dnsmasq I use `-interface ens192` for the normal main
instance, while using `-interface ens192:0` and `-interfaces ens192:1`
for special instances only assigned to specific machines via their MAC
addresses.
What is the correct name when I use the label option of the ip command?
The "IP-Aliasing" doc was the only one I could find on kernel.org that
fit the way labels are assigned with ip.
I know how to set these labels the following three ways:
a) manual iproute2 commands
ip addr add 192.168.0.1/24 broadcast + dev ens192
ip addr add 192.168.0.90/24 broadcast + label ens192:0 dev ens192
ip addr add 192.168.0.91/24 broadcast + label ens192:1 dev ens192
b) via /etc/network/interfaces
iface ens192 inet static
address 192.168.0.1/24
iface ens192:0 inet static
address 192.168.0.90/24
iface ens192:1 inet static
address 192.168.0.91/24
c) via systemd-networkd
[Address]
Address=192.168.0.1/24
[Address]
Address=192.168.0.90/24
Label=ens192:0
[Address]
Address=192.168.0.91/24
Label=ens192:1
Hope this explains it much better
Matthias
>> Long story:
>> I tried to find out how to do virtual network interfaces "The Right
>> Way
>> (tm)" nowadays.
>> So I came across MACVLAN, IPVLAN and alike on the internet, mostly in
>> conjunction with containers or VMs.
>> But MACVLAN/IPVLAN do not provide the same usability as "IP-Aliasing",
>> e.g.
>> user needs to learn a lot about network infrastructre, sysctl
>> settings,
>> forwarding, etc.
>> They also do not provide the same functionality, e.g. the virtual
>> interfaces
>> cannot reach their parent interface.
>>
>> In my tests with MACVLAN (bridge)/IPVLAN (L2) pinging between parent
>> and
>> virtual devices with `ping -I <device> <target ip>` failed for IPv4
>> and
>> IPV6.
>
> This is an interesting observation but also a completely artificial
> example. You should probably explain what is the actual goal you want
> to
> achieve.
>
>> Pinging from outside MACVLAN worked fine for IPv4 but not IPv6, while
>> IPVLAN
>> failed also for pinging with IPv4 to the virtual interfaces. Pinging
>> to
>> outside only worked from the parent device.
>> Unfortunately I could not find any source on the internet that
>> describes how
>> to setup MACVLAN/IPVLAN and their surroundings correctly for a single
>> machine. It seems they are just used for containers and VMs.
>
> That's because containers and VMs are the primary use case (macvlan can
> also make sense if you want to use different MAC address for some
> reason). Otherwise, it should be sufficient to simply assign multiple
> IPv[46] addresses to your interface.
>
> Michal Kubecek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists