[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50f1a384-c312-d6ec-0f42-2b9ce3a48013@candelatech.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 11:33:42 -0800
From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: vrf and multicast problem
On 3/9/22 7:54 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 3/9/22 3:31 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
>> [resend, sorry...sent to wrong mailing list the first time]
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> We recently found a somewhat weird problem, and before I go digging into
>> the kernel source, I wanted to see if someone had an answer already...
>>
>> I am binding (SO_BINDTODEVICE) a socket to an Ethernet port that is in a
>> VRF with a second
>> interface. When I try to send mcast traffic out that eth port, nothing is
>> seen on the wire.
>>
>> But, if I set up a similar situation with a single network port in
>> a vrf and send multicast, then it does appear to work as I expected.
>>
>> I am not actually trying to do any mcast routing here, I simply want to
>> send
>> out mcast frames from a port that resides inside a vrf.
>>
>> Any idea what might be the issue?
>>
>
> multicast with VRF works. I am not aware of any known issues
I set up a more controlled network to do some more testing. I have eth2
on 192.168.100.x/24 network, and eth1 on 172.16.0.1/16.
I bind the mcast transmitter to eth1:
193 setsockopt(28, SOL_SOCKET, SO_BINDTODEVICE, "eth1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0", 16) = 0
194 setsockopt(28, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0
195 bind(28, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(8888), sin_addr=inet_addr("0.0.0.0")}, 16) = 0
196 fcntl(28, F_GETFL) = 0x2 (flags O_RDWR)
197 fcntl(28, F_SETFL, O_ACCMODE|O_NONBLOCK) = 0
198 setsockopt(28, SOL_SOCKET, SO_BROADCAST, [1], 4) = 0
199 setsockopt(28, SOL_SOCKET, SO_SNDBUF, [64000], 4) = 0
200 setsockopt(28, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUF, [128000], 4) = 0
201 getsockopt(28, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUF, [256000], [4]) = 0
202 getsockopt(28, SOL_SOCKET, SO_SNDBUF, [128000], [4]) = 0
203 write(3, "1646940176442: BtbitsIpEndpoint"..., 69) = 69
204 setsockopt(28, SOL_IP, IP_TOS, [0], 4) = 0
205 getsockopt(28, SOL_IP, IP_TOS, [0], [4]) = 0
206 setsockopt(28, SOL_SOCKET, SO_PRIORITY, [0], 4) = 0
207 getsockopt(28, SOL_SOCKET, SO_PRIORITY, [0], [4]) = 0
208 write(3, "1646940176442: UdpEndpBase.cc 2"..., 148) = 148
209 setsockopt(28, SOL_IP, IP_MULTICAST_IF, [16781484], 4) = 0
210 setsockopt(28, SOL_IP, IP_MULTICAST_TTL, " ", 1) = 0
That IP_MULTICAST_IF ioctl should be assigning the IP address of
eth1.
But when I sniff, I see the mcast packets going out of eth2:
[root@...22-63e7 lanforge]# tshark -n -i eth2
Running as user "root" and group "root". This could be dangerous.
Capturing on 'eth2'
1 0.000000000 192.168.100.28 → 225.5.5.1 LANforge 1514 Seq: 474
2 0.060868103 192.168.100.226 → 192.168.100.255 ADwin Config 94
3 0.060900503 00:0d:b9:41:6a:90 → ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff 0x1111 92 Ethernet II
4 0.209523669 192.168.100.28 → 225.5.5.1 LANforge 1514 Seq: 475
[root@...22-63e7 lanforge]# ifconfig eth1
eth1: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 172.16.0.1 netmask 255.255.0.0 broadcast 172.16.255.255
inet6 fe80::230:18ff:fe01:63e8 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether 00:30:18:01:63:e8 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 1972669 bytes 409744407 (390.7 MiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 5818525 bytes 7341747933 (6.8 GiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
device memory 0xdf740000-df75ffff
[root@...22-63e7 lanforge]# ifconfig eth2
eth2: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 192.168.100.28 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.100.255
inet6 fe80::230:18ff:fe01:63e9 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether 00:30:18:01:63:e9 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 24638831 bytes 8874820766 (8.2 GiB)
RX errors 26712 dropped 6596663 overruns 0 frame 16757
TX packets 1753211 bytes 370552564 (353.3 MiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
device memory 0xdf720000-df73ffff
If I disable VRF and use routing-rules based approach, then it works
as I expect (mcast frames go out of eth1).
We tested back to quite-old kernels with same symptom, so I think it is not
a regression.
Any suggestions on where to start poking at this in the kernel?
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists