From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa Subject: Re: Q: bad routing table cache entries Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:47:19 +0100 Message-ID: <56953C27.4030405@stressinduktion.org> References: <5682665A.7090102@list.ru> <56951D1D.5080602@stressinduktion.org> <56952147.80201@stressinduktion.org> <569523C0.5040504@list.ru> <56952593.8040409@stressinduktion.org> <56952D01.6070204@list.ru> <56953059.1020506@list.ru> <569532A6.1070905@stressinduktion.org> <56953560.9050906@list.ru> <56953740.1090204@stressinduktion.org> <569538FD.2060200@list.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: netdev , Sowmini Varadhan To: Stas Sergeev Return-path: Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:44608 "EHLO out4-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752211AbcALRrV (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:47:21 -0500 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B8DD208A5 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:47:20 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <569538FD.2060200@list.ru> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12.01.2016 18:33, Stas Sergeev wrote: > 12.01.2016 20:26, Hannes Frederic Sowa =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82= : >> On 12.01.2016 18:18, Stas Sergeev wrote: >>> 12.01.2016 20:06, Hannes Frederic Sowa =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82= : >>>> On 12.01.2016 17:56, Stas Sergeev wrote: >>>>> 12.01.2016 19:42, Stas Sergeev =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: >>>>> Also the rfc1620 you pointed, seems to be saying this: >>>>> >>>>> A Redirect message SHOULD be silently discarde= d if the >>>>> new router address it specifies is not on the = same >>>>> connected (sub-) net through which the Redirec= t arrived, >>>>> or if the source of the Redirect is not the cu= rrent >>>>> first-hop router for the specified destination= =2E >>>>> >>>>> It seems, this is exactly the rule we were trying to find >>>>> during the thread. And it seems violated, either. Unless I am >>>>> mis-interpreting it, of course. >>>> >>>> If you read on you will read that with shared_media this exact cla= use (the first of those) is not in effect any more. >>> OK. But how to get such a redirect to work, if (checked with >>> tcpdump) the packets do not even go to eth0, but to "lo"? >> >> I don't know, the router must be on the same shared medium. I guess = physical reconfiguration is required? > It is same. > Router 192.168.8.1 has just one ethernet port. > And even on the 192.168.10.202 node I can do: > # arp -a |grep "0.1" > ? (192.168.0.1) at 14:d6:4d:1c:97:3d [ether] on eth0 > So even 0.1 is about to be reachable. > Still nothing works. > Should it work if 192.168.0.1 router, to which 8.1 redirects, > has shared_media disabled? Can you check with tcpdump? ping requires the router to also find a=20 correct way back, so packet can get stuck at a lot of places. Also uRPF= =20 is maybe active which kind of defeats shared_media and please check=20 netfilter. Bye, Hannes