Subject: Re: Supporting 4 way connections in LKSCTP

From: Sun Paul <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 10:12:01 +0800

So, can I get confirmation that whether we can enhance to support the
scenarios or any resolution on providing the correct routing?

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Sun Paul <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> we have a problem on using LKSCTP to form a 4 ways multi-homing network.
>
> Configuration
> - Node-A has 2 IP addresses in different subnets, known as IP-A (eth1),
> IP-B (eth2)
> - Node-B has 2 IP addresses in different subnets, known as IP-X (eth1),
> IP-Y (eth2)
>
> the four way paths are shown below.
> 1. IP-A (11.1.1.1) to IP-X (11.1.1.11)
> 2. IP-B (12.1.1.1) to IP-Y (12.1.1.11)
> 3. IP-A (11.1.1.1) to IP-Y (12.1.1.11)
> 4. IP-B (12.1.1.1) to IP-X (11.1.1.11)
>
> the HB/HB_ACK is normal for the paths " IP-A to IP-X" and "IP-B to
> IP-Y", but it is not correct for the rest of two.
>
> First of all, we are using iproute2 to form 2 table such that when
> IP-B arrives on IP-X, it will know how to route back to IP-B on the
> same interface, i.e (eth1). Same logic for the path "IP-A to IP-X".
>
> What we observed here is that when 12.1.1.1 sends INIT to 11.1.1.11,
> LKSCTP will send back the INIT_ACK to 12.1.1.1 using 12.1.1.11 but not
> using the IP 11.1.1.11.
>
> The above operation makes the subsequence HB/HB_ACK in using wrong IP address.
>
> TCP trace on eth1
> 18:02:41.058640 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [INIT]
> [init tag: 19933036] [rwnd: 102400] [OS: 16] [MIS: 16] [init TSN: 0]
> 18:02:41.061634 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [COOKIE ECHO]
> 18:02:41.062642 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
> 18:02:41.062846 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 11.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
> 18:02:41.361811 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 11.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
> 18:02:41.661791 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 11.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
> 18:02:41.961791 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 11.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
>
> TCP trace on eth2
> 18:02:41.058755 IP 12.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [INIT ACK]
> [init tag: 424726157] [rwnd: 131072] [OS: 5] [MIS: 5] [init TSN:
> 3340756356]
> 18:02:41.061696 IP 12.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [COOKIE ACK]
> 18:02:41.062663 IP 12.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
> 18:02:41.062791 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
> 18:02:41.361777 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
> 18:02:41.661772 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
> 18:02:41.961772 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
> 18:02:42.161771 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
> 18:02:42.461770 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
> 18:02:42.675770 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>
>
> If we are using single homing, there is no problem on the SCTP
> communication. Below is the TCP trace on eth1 using sctp_test
>
> 18:09:55.356727 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [INIT]
> [init tag: 32516609] [rwnd: 102400] [OS: 16] [MIS: 16] [init TSN: 0]
> 18:09:55.356811 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [INIT ACK]
> [init tag: 3168861995] [rwnd: 131072] [OS: 10] [MIS: 16] [init TSN:
> 1877695021]
> 18:09:55.357727 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [COOKIE ECHO]
> 18:09:55.357788 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [COOKIE ACK]
> 18:09:55.358724 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
> 18:09:55.358740 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
> 18:09:55.379715 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [DATA]
> (B)(E) [TSN: 0] [SID: 0] [SSEQ 0] [PPID 0x3]
> 18:09:55.379735 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [SACK]
> [cum ack 0] [a_rwnd 131064] [#gap acks 0] [#dup tsns 0]
> 18:09:55.657716 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
> 18:09:55.657732 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
>
> From the observations, it seems that the LKSCTP library is not able to
> use the original local address when multi-homing is being used. Is
> there anyway can be resolved it?
>
> Thanks
>
> PS