On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:12 PM, David Ahern <dsah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/18 12:30 AM, Xin Long wrote:
>> +ping_ipv4()
>> +{
>> + sysctl_set net.ipv4.icmp_echo_ignore_broadcasts 0
>> + bc_forwarding_disable
>> + ping_test $h1 198.51.100.255
>> +
>> + iptables -A INPUT -i vrf-r1 -p icmp -j DROP
>> + bc_forwarding_restore
>> + bc_forwarding_enable
>> + ping_test $h1 198.51.100.255
>> +
>> + bc_forwarding_restore
>> + iptables -D INPUT -i vrf-r1 -p icmp -j DROP
>> + sysctl_restore net.ipv4.icmp_echo_ignore_broadcasts
>> +}
>
> Both tests fail for me:
> TEST: ping [FAIL]
> TEST: ping [FAIL]
I think 'ip vrf exec ...' is not working in your env, while
the testing is using "ip vrf exec vrf-h1 ping ..."
You can test it by:
# ip link add dev vrf-test type vrf table 1111
# ip vrf exec vrf-test ls
>
> Why the need for the iptables rule?
This iptables rule is to block the echo_request packet going to
route's local_in.
When bc_forwarding is NOT doing forwarding well but the packet
goes to the route's local_in, it will fail.
Without this rule, the 2nd ping will always succeed, we can't tell the
echo_reply is from route or h2.
Or you have a better way to test this?
>
> And, PAUSE_ON_FAIL is not working to take a look at why tests are
> failing. e.g.,
>
> PAUSE_ON_FAIL=yes ./router_broadcast.sh
>
> just continues on. Might be something with the infrastructure scripts.
Yes, in ./router_broadcast.sh, it loads lib.sh where it loads forwarding.config
where it has "PAUSE_ON_FAIL=no", which would override your
"PAUSE_ON_FAIL=yes".
