Sowmini Varadhan <sowmin...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 7:19 PM, David Ahern <d...@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote: > >> On the to-do list to use cmsg to specify a VRF for outbound packets using >> non-connected sockets. I do not believe it is going to work, but need to >> look into it. >> >>> What about setting ipsec policy for interfaces in the vrf? > > From a purely parochial standpoint, how would rds sockets work in this model? > Would the tcp encaps happen before or after the the vrf "driver" output? > Same problem for NFS. > > From a non-parochial standpoint. There are a *lot* of routing apps that > actually > need more visibility into many details about the "slave" interface: e.g., > OSPF, > ARP snoop, IPSLA.. the list is pretty long. > > I think it's a bad idea to use a "driver" to represent a table lookup. Too > many > hacks will become necessary.
With respect to sockets there is also the issue that ip addresses are not per vrf. Which means things like packet fragmentation reassembly can easily do the wrong thing. Similarly things like the xfrm for ipsec tunnels are not hooked into this mix. So I really do not see how this VRF/MRF thing as designed can support general purpose sockets. I am not certain it can correctly support any kind of socket except perhaps SOCK_RAW. Which strongly suggests to me you can leave off the magic network device and simply add the fib_lookup logic that finds the base fib table by looking at the in coming network device. That seems a whole lot simpler and a whole lot less surprising. The better routing will work and people playing with sockets will clearly see the dangers. Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
