On 7/3/18 5:36 AM, Xin Long wrote:
> 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
well, that's embarrassing. yes, I updated ip and forgot to apply the bpf
workaround to define the syscall number (not defined in jessie).
>
>>
>> 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?
your commands are not a proper test. The test should succeed and fail
based on the routing lookup, not iptables rules.
>
>>
>> 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".
>
ack. bit by that as well.
