[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e138257e-68a9-4514-90e8-d7482d04c31f@candelatech.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 17:47:12 -0800
From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
Cc: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: GRE tunnels bound to VRF
On 11/18/24 11:48 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 11/18/24 1:00 AM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 10:40:18AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Is there any (sane) way to tell a GRE tunnel to use a VRF for its
>>> underlying traffic?
>>>
>>> For instance, if I have eth1 in a VRF, and eth2 in another VRF, I'd like gre0 to be bound
>>> to the eth1 VRF and gre1 to the eth2 VRF, with ability to send traffic between the two
>>> gre interfaces and have that go out whatever the ethernet VRFs route to...
>>
>> You can set eth{1,2} as the "physical device" of gre{0,1}
>>
>> ip link add name gre0 up type gre [...] dev eth1
>> ip link add name gre1 up type gre [...] dev eth2
>>
>> The "physical device" can be any interface in the VRF, not necessarily
>> eth{1,2}.
>
> Hello,
>
> Thanks for that suggestion.
>
> I'm trying to implement this, but not having much luck. My current approach
> is trying to put gre0 in one VRF, attached to a VETH device in a different VRF.
>
> Would you expect that to work?
I found some other problems with my config, will try this again now that some other
problems are solved...
>
> And also, is there any way to delete a gre netdev? ip link delete gre0 doesn't
> complain, and doesn't work.
I found answer to this, for reference, it seems gre0 is default instance built by the
ip_gre module when it is loaded, and used for special purpose.
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists