Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that routing entry?

Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that routing entry?

[zhuyj]

Hi, David

With ubuntu 12.04, I run the following to reproduce this defect.

1) Configure an interface
ifconfig eth1 150.0.0.1/24 up

2) Add routing entry via that interface address
route add -net 200.0.0.0/24 gw 150.0.0.1

3) Change the ip address on that interface as shown below.
ifconfig eth1 151.0.0.1/24 up

4) Check netlink messages with "ip monitor all". There is no route 
delete netlink message.

[ADDR]Deleted 3: eth1    inet 150.0.0.1/24 brd 150.0.0.255 scope global eth1
[ROUTE]Deleted 150.0.0.0/24 dev eth1  proto kernel  scope link  src 
150.0.0.1
[ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 150.0.0.255 dev eth1  table local  proto 
kernel  scope link  src 150.0.0.1
[ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 150.0.0.0 dev eth1  table local  proto kernel  
scope link  src 150.0.0.1
[ROUTE]Deleted local 150.0.0.1 dev eth1  table local  proto kernel scope 
host  src 150.0.0.1
[NEIGH]224.0.0.251 dev eth1 lladdr 01:00:5e:00:00:fb NOARP
[NEIGH]224.0.0.22 dev eth1 lladdr 01:00:5e:00:00:16 NOARP
[ADDR]3: eth1    inet 151.0.0.1/16 brd 151.0.255.255 scope global eth1
[ROUTE]local 151.0.0.1 dev eth1  table local  proto kernel  scope host  
src 151.0.0.1
[ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.255.255 dev eth1  table local  proto kernel scope 
link  src 151.0.0.1
[ROUTE]151.0.0.0/16 dev eth1  proto kernel  scope link  src 151.0.0.1
[ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.0.0 dev eth1  table local  proto kernel scope 
link  src 151.0.0.1
[ADDR]Deleted 3: eth1    inet 151.0.0.1/16 brd 151.0.255.255 scope 
global eth1
[ROUTE]Deleted 151.0.0.0/16 dev eth1  proto kernel  scope link  src 
151.0.0.1
[ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 151.0.255.255 dev eth1  table local  proto 
kernel  scope link  src 151.0.0.1
[ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 151.0.0.0 dev eth1  table local  proto kernel  
scope link  src 151.0.0.1
[ROUTE]Deleted local 151.0.0.1 dev eth1  table local  proto kernel scope 
host  src 151.0.0.1
[NEIGH]224.0.0.22 dev eth1 lladdr 01:00:5e:00:00:16 NOARP
[ADDR]3: eth1    inet 151.0.0.1/24 brd 151.0.0.255 scope global eth1
[ROUTE]local 151.0.0.1 dev eth1  table local  proto kernel  scope host  
src 151.0.0.1
[ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.0.255 dev eth1  table local  proto kernel scope 
link  src 151.0.0.1
[ROUTE]151.0.0.0/24 dev eth1  proto kernel  scope link  src 151.0.0.1
[ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.0.0 dev eth1  table local  proto kernel scope 
link  src 151.0.0.1

There is no netlink message to notify that 200.0.0.0/24 is deleted. But 
in fact, this 200.0.0.0/24 route item disappears.

I checked the source code, and I found the following is the process to 
delete static routes when the attached interface is deleted.

  1)               |  fib_netdev_event() {
  1)               |    fib_disable_ip() {
  1)   1.284 us    |      fib_sync_down_dev();
  1)               |      fib_flush() {
  1)               |        fib_table_flush() {
  1)   0.129 us    |          fib_release_info();
  1)   0.351 us    |          fib_release_info();
  1)   4.605 us    |        }
  1)               |        fib_table_flush() {
  1)   0.096 us    |          fib_release_info();
  1)   0.255 us    |          fib_release_info();
  1)   4.770 us    |        }
  1) + 11.787 us   |      }
  1) ! 315.273 us  |    }
  1) ! 315.888 us  |  }

But there is no netlink message sent here.

Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that 200.0.0.0/24 
routing entry?

Best Regards!
Zhu Yanjun

Re: Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that routing entry?

[zhuyj]

Hi, all

Please help to look at this problem. And give us an official 
explanation. Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that 
routing entry?

Thanks a lot.
Zhu Yanjun

On 04/10/2014 04:23 PM, zhuyj wrote:
> Hi, David
>
> With ubuntu 12.04, I run the following to reproduce this defect.
>
> 1) Configure an interface
> ifconfig eth1 150.0.0.1/24 up
>
> 2) Add routing entry via that interface address
> route add -net 200.0.0.0/24 gw 150.0.0.1
>
> 3) Change the ip address on that interface as shown below.
> ifconfig eth1 151.0.0.1/24 up
>
> 4) Check netlink messages with "ip monitor all". There is no route 
> delete netlink message.
>
> [ADDR]Deleted 3: eth1    inet 150.0.0.1/24 brd 150.0.0.255 scope 
> global eth1
> [ROUTE]Deleted 150.0.0.0/24 dev eth1  proto kernel  scope link src 
> 150.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 150.0.0.255 dev eth1  table local  proto 
> kernel  scope link  src 150.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 150.0.0.0 dev eth1  table local  proto 
> kernel  scope link  src 150.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]Deleted local 150.0.0.1 dev eth1  table local  proto kernel 
> scope host  src 150.0.0.1
> [NEIGH]224.0.0.251 dev eth1 lladdr 01:00:5e:00:00:fb NOARP
> [NEIGH]224.0.0.22 dev eth1 lladdr 01:00:5e:00:00:16 NOARP
> [ADDR]3: eth1    inet 151.0.0.1/16 brd 151.0.255.255 scope global eth1
> [ROUTE]local 151.0.0.1 dev eth1  table local  proto kernel  scope 
> host  src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.255.255 dev eth1  table local  proto kernel 
> scope link  src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]151.0.0.0/16 dev eth1  proto kernel  scope link  src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.0.0 dev eth1  table local  proto kernel scope 
> link  src 151.0.0.1
> [ADDR]Deleted 3: eth1    inet 151.0.0.1/16 brd 151.0.255.255 scope 
> global eth1
> [ROUTE]Deleted 151.0.0.0/16 dev eth1  proto kernel  scope link src 
> 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 151.0.255.255 dev eth1  table local proto 
> kernel  scope link  src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 151.0.0.0 dev eth1  table local  proto 
> kernel  scope link  src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]Deleted local 151.0.0.1 dev eth1  table local  proto kernel 
> scope host  src 151.0.0.1
> [NEIGH]224.0.0.22 dev eth1 lladdr 01:00:5e:00:00:16 NOARP
> [ADDR]3: eth1    inet 151.0.0.1/24 brd 151.0.0.255 scope global eth1
> [ROUTE]local 151.0.0.1 dev eth1  table local  proto kernel  scope 
> host  src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.0.255 dev eth1  table local  proto kernel scope 
> link  src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]151.0.0.0/24 dev eth1  proto kernel  scope link  src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.0.0 dev eth1  table local  proto kernel scope 
> link  src 151.0.0.1
>
> There is no netlink message to notify that 200.0.0.0/24 is deleted. 
> But in fact, this 200.0.0.0/24 route item disappears.
>
> I checked the source code, and I found the following is the process to 
> delete static routes when the attached interface is deleted.
>
>  1)               |  fib_netdev_event() {
>  1)               |    fib_disable_ip() {
>  1)   1.284 us    |      fib_sync_down_dev();
>  1)               |      fib_flush() {
>  1)               |        fib_table_flush() {
>  1)   0.129 us    |          fib_release_info();
>  1)   0.351 us    |          fib_release_info();
>  1)   4.605 us    |        }
>  1)               |        fib_table_flush() {
>  1)   0.096 us    |          fib_release_info();
>  1)   0.255 us    |          fib_release_info();
>  1)   4.770 us    |        }
>  1) + 11.787 us   |      }
>  1) ! 315.273 us  |    }
>  1) ! 315.888 us  |  }
>
> But there is no netlink message sent here.
>
> Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that 200.0.0.0/24 
> routing entry?
>
> Best Regards!
> Zhu Yanjun
>
>

Re: Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that routing entry?

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 17:15:48 +0800
zhuyj <zyjzyj2000@gmail.com> wrote:

> > With ubuntu 12.04, I run the following to reproduce this defect.
> >
> > 1) Configure an interface
> > ifconfig eth1 150.0.0.1/24 up
> >
> > 2) Add routing entry via that interface address
> > route add -net 200.0.0.0/24 gw 150.0.0.1
> >
> > 3) Change the ip address on that interface as shown below.
> > ifconfig eth1 151.0.0.1/24 up
> >
> > 4) Check netlink messages with "ip monitor all". There is no route 
> > delete netlink message.
> >

With IPv4 there are several cases where there is a non-notified
implicit route withdrawal. This is not something that can be fixed.
There are two issues:
 1. with large backbone size route tables (ie 1M routes), the number
    of notification messages becomes a bottleneck and would be unreliable
 2. the existing routing daemons (quagga, bird, etc) all understand/expect
    the existing semantics

Re: Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that routing entry?

[zhuyj]

On 04/12/2014 02:30 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 17:15:48 +0800
> zhuyj <zyjzyj2000@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> With ubuntu 12.04, I run the following to reproduce this defect.
>>>
>>> 1) Configure an interface
>>> ifconfig eth1 150.0.0.1/24 up
>>>
>>> 2) Add routing entry via that interface address
>>> route add -net 200.0.0.0/24 gw 150.0.0.1
>>>
>>> 3) Change the ip address on that interface as shown below.
>>> ifconfig eth1 151.0.0.1/24 up
>>>
>>> 4) Check netlink messages with "ip monitor all". There is no route
>>> delete netlink message.
>>>
> With IPv4 there are several cases where there is a non-notified
> implicit route withdrawal. This is not something that can be fixed.
> There are two issues:
>   1. with large backbone size route tables (ie 1M routes), the number
>      of notification messages becomes a bottleneck and would be unreliable
>   2. the existing routing daemons (quagga, bird, etc) all understand/expect
>      the existing semantics
>
Hi,

Thanks a lot.

Best Regards!
Zhu Yanjun