From: Stas Sergeev <stsp@list•ru>
To: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion•org>
Cc: netdev <netdev@vger•kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Q: bad routing table cache entries
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:42:41 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56952D01.6070204@list.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56952593.8040409@stressinduktion.org>
12.01.2016 19:10, Hannes Frederic Sowa пишет:
> On 12.01.2016 17:03, Stas Sergeev wrote:
>> 12.01.2016 18:52, Hannes Frederic Sowa пишет:
>>> On 12.01.2016 16:34, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>>>> On 29.12.2015 11:54, Stas Sergeev wrote:
>>>>> Hello.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was hitting a strange problem when some internet hosts
>>>>> suddenly stops responding until I reboot. ping to these
>>>>> host gives "Destination Host Unreachable". After the
>>>>> initial confusion, I've finally got to
>>>>> ip route get
>>>>> and got something quite strange.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Example for GOOD address (the one that I can ping):
>>>>>
>>>>> ip route get 91.189.89.237
>>>>> 91.189.89.237 via 192.168.8.1 dev eth0 src 192.168.10.202
>>>>> cache
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Example for BAD address (the one that stopped responding):
>>>>>
>>>>> ip route get 91.189.89.238
>>>>> 91.189.89.238 via 192.168.0.1 dev eth0 src 192.168.10.202
>>>>> cache <redirected>
>>>>
>>>> I tried to understand this thread and now wonder why this redirect route
>>>> isn't there always. Can you please summarize again why this shouldn't
>>>> happen? It looks totally fine to me from the configuration of your
>>>> router and the subnet masks.
>>>
>>> Just an addendum:
>>>
>>> In IPv6 a redirect is seen as a notification telling hosts, this new address is on the same link as you. I think this semantic is the same for IPv4, so we are informing you that in essence you are
>>> getting a /32 route installed to your new interface and can do link layer resolving of the new host.
>>>
>>> I do think this is valid and fine.
>> You can't call "valid and fine" something that doesn't
>> work, at first place. Why and where does it fail, was the
>> subject of this thread.
>
> In terms of the shared media specification <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1620> it is valid and fine.
Good luck sending users to RFC without giving any explanations. :)
Well, yes, an interesting reading, but:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1812
---
Routers MUST NOT generate a Redirect Message unless all the following
conditions are met:
o The packet is being forwarded out the same physical interface that
it was received from,
o The IP source address in the packet is on the same Logical IP
(sub)network as the next-hop IP address, and
o The packet does not contain an IP source route option.
The source address used in the ICMP Redirect MUST belong to the same
logical (sub)net as the destination address.
---
Could you please explain why the above does not apply?
> You can also disable shared_media on the client and it won't accept such redirects anymore.
Only "such" redirects, or any redirects?
>> If you think router did the right thing, then please explain
>> the breakage from that point of view.
> Hope it makes sense.
No, because it still doesn't work for me.
What should I do to get such redirects to work?
What should I do to at least list them?
Even if this is with accordance to some RFC (which it seems not, though),
this doesn't help me a tiny bit, unless it also works. :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-12 16:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-29 10:54 Q: bad routing table cache entries Stas Sergeev
2015-12-29 11:58 ` Sowmini Varadhan
2015-12-29 12:06 ` Stas Sergeev
2015-12-29 12:32 ` Sowmini Varadhan
2015-12-29 12:43 ` Stas Sergeev
2015-12-29 13:19 ` Stas Sergeev
2015-12-29 15:22 ` Sowmini Varadhan
2015-12-29 15:38 ` Stas Sergeev
2015-12-29 17:40 ` Stas Sergeev
2015-12-30 12:42 ` Stas Sergeev
2015-12-30 14:17 ` Eric Dumazet
2015-12-30 17:56 ` David Miller
2016-01-04 1:05 ` Sowmini Varadhan
2016-01-04 1:32 ` Stas Sergeev
2016-01-04 17:23 ` Stas Sergeev
2016-01-12 14:40 ` Stas Sergeev
2016-01-12 14:47 ` Sowmini Varadhan
2016-01-12 20:33 ` David Miller
2016-01-12 15:34 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-01-12 15:52 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-01-12 16:03 ` Stas Sergeev
2016-01-12 16:10 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-01-12 16:42 ` Stas Sergeev [this message]
2016-01-12 16:56 ` Stas Sergeev
2016-01-12 17:06 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-01-12 17:18 ` Stas Sergeev
2016-01-12 17:26 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-01-12 17:33 ` Stas Sergeev
2016-01-12 17:47 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-01-12 20:43 ` Stas Sergeev
2016-01-12 22:26 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-01-12 22:57 ` Stas Sergeev
2016-01-12 23:07 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-01-13 12:59 ` Stas Sergeev
2016-01-12 17:41 ` Stas Sergeev
2016-01-12 15:57 ` Stas Sergeev
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56952D01.6070204@list.ru \
--to=stsp@list$(echo .)ru \
--cc=hannes@stressinduktion$(echo .)org \
--cc=netdev@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox