public inbox for netdev@vger.kernel.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stas Sergeev <stsp@list•ru>
To: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion•org>
Cc: netdev <netdev@vger•kernel.org>,
	Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@oracle•com>
Subject: Re: Q: bad routing table cache entries
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 20:18:24 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56953560.9050906@list.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <569532A6.1070905@stressinduktion.org>

12.01.2016 20:06, Hannes Frederic Sowa пишет:
> On 12.01.2016 17:56, Stas Sergeev wrote:
>> 12.01.2016 19:42, Stas Sergeev пишет:
>>> 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. :)
> 
> It explains how and what extensions need to be added to an ip routing/host device to deal better with shared media.
> 
>>> 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?
>> Also the rfc1620 you pointed, seems to be saying this:
>>
>>                  A Redirect message SHOULD be silently discarded if the
>>                  new router address it specifies is not on the same
>>                  connected (sub-) net through which the Redirect arrived,
>>                  or if the source of the Redirect is not the current
>>                  first-hop router for the specified destination.
>>
>> It seems, this is exactly the rule we were trying to find
>> during the thread. And it seems violated, either. Unless I am
>> mis-interpreting it, of course.
> 
> If you read on you will read that with shared_media this exact clause (the first of those) is not in effect any more.
OK. But how to get such a redirect to work, if (checked with
tcpdump) the packets do not even go to eth0, but to "lo"?
And how to deal with the above quote from rfc1812?

> I don't know why shared_media=1 is the default in Linux, this decision was made long before I joined here. Anyway, with shared_media=1 this is absolutely the required behavior.
Then it should work. How? :)

  reply	other threads:[~2016-01-12 17:18 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
2016-01-12 16:56           ` Stas Sergeev
2016-01-12 17:06             ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-01-12 17:18               ` Stas Sergeev [this message]
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=56953560.9050906@list.ru \
    --to=stsp@list$(echo .)ru \
    --cc=hannes@stressinduktion$(echo .)org \
    --cc=netdev@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
    --cc=sowmini.varadhan@oracle$(echo .)com \
    /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