Date:   Wed, 8 Jul 2020 14:17:18 +0300
From:   Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: What is the correct way to install an L2 multicast route into a
 bridge?

On 08/07/2020 14:07, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 08/07/2020 12:42, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 12:16:27PM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>>> On 08/07/2020 12:04, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I am confused after reading man/man8/bridge.8. I have a bridge br0 with
>>>> 4 interfaces (eth0 -> eth3), and I would like to install a rule such
>>>> that the non-IP multicast address of 09:00:70:00:00:00 is only forwarded
>>>> towards 3 of those ports, instead of being flooded.
>>>> The manual says that 'bridge mdb' is only for IP multicast, and implies
>>>> that 'bridge fdb append' (NLM_F_APPEND) is only used by vxlan. So, what
>>>> is the correct user interface for what I am trying to do?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> -Vladimir
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Vladimir,
>>> The bridge currently doesn't support L2 multicast routes. The MDB interface needs to be extended
>>> for such support. Soon I'll post patches that move it to a new, entirely netlink attribute-
>>> based, structure so it can be extended easily for that, too. My change is motivated mainly by SSM
>>> but it will help with implementing this feature as well.
>>> In case you need it sooner, patches are always welcome! :)
>>>
>>> Current MDB fixed-size structure can also be used for implementing L2 mcast routes, but it would
>>> require some workarounds. 
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>  Nik
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, Nikolay.
>> Isn't mdb_modify() already netlink-based? I think you're talking about
>> some changes to 'struct br_mdb_entry' which would be necessary. What
>> changes would be needed, do you know (both in the 'workaround' case as
>> well as in 'fully netlink')?
>>
>> -Vladimir
>>
> 
> That is netlink-based, but the uAPI (used also for add/del/dump) uses a fixed-size struct
> which is very inconvenient and hard to extend. I plan to add MDBv2 which uses separate
> netlink attributes and can be easily extended as we plan to add some new features and will
> need that flexibility. It will use a new container attribute for the notifications as well.
> 
> In the workaround case IIRC you'd have to add a new protocol type to denote the L2 routes, and

Actually drop the whole /workaround/ comment altogether. It can be implemented fairly straight-forward
even with the struct we got now. You don't need any new attributes.
I just had forgotten the details and spoke too quickly. :)

> re-work the lookup logic to include L2 in non-IP case. You'd have to edit the multicast fast-path,
> and everything else that assumes the frame has to be IP/IPv6. I'm sure I'm missing some details as
> last I did this was over an year ago where I made a quick and dirty hack that implemented it with proto = 0
> to denote an L2 entry just as a proof of concept.
> Also you would have to make sure all of that is compatible with current user-space code. For example
> iproute2/bridge/mdb.c considers that proto can be only IPv4 or IPv6 if it's not v4, i.e. it will
> print the new L2 entries as :: IPv6 entries until it's fixed.
> 
> Obviously some of the items for the workaround case are valid in all cases for L2 routes (e.g. fast-path/lookup edit).
> But I think it's not that hard to implement without affecting the fast path much or even at all.
> 
> Cheers,
>  Nik
> 
> 
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists