From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6747C433DB for ; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 16:13:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9173A64EA4 for ; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 16:13:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231174AbhCFQMm (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Mar 2021 11:12:42 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54168 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231164AbhCFQMR (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Mar 2021 11:12:17 -0500 Received: from mail-oo1-xc34.google.com (mail-oo1-xc34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c34]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85F41C06174A for ; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 08:12:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oo1-xc34.google.com with SMTP id l11so1184870oov.13 for ; Sat, 06 Mar 2021 08:12:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tW1gHX3gSTz0GPVLpavmnO8eGOz65fyOhx30z8m2Pck=; b=fV00oRQHKfKxnGmRqSFSplTeVj5lv3LrCAlIq81F7iB5sHvGvrv4Y9IqUce4UVXm85 Ips9P8voFRDnF783/quNtUCxNDU1LVsA555XfodSv/3jDMUj2NyTYWTkpYyWVuP/qWaI x966LkVjI36A9n+hJ/bSIxSxyNkNaQMe9PgrUbuBX9dprh/nRC4FAQuhT8LLoSSkfQyT rI6XCSZZctEM1WklF1CBN6+kfPHRLof3vTy6sv/Sk65NSOEhDO0RJfb0qzBaNptmK01L FMPb33jecHIKWS9QqnJctSaGDIqeexOAxhzbSdT7Bu2ijjJrDip/LFEdH0sgBQEi6kEx b9Bw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=tW1gHX3gSTz0GPVLpavmnO8eGOz65fyOhx30z8m2Pck=; b=cHWi7rjM2v3jZlhc+2qwn1sanby8UyzAp0BLkoR4+8YqEx7BGTSxAaBPyKfJny2Zyc 7/HuP9ZTRbCeK2xyJdxt//oUq4gXXeeQro8tCpdUxNAvYwLJ80CPsIj3hFI2vw2xhm3f PHx2cYokkvuFYi7x5NmhM3IjxyCYp3Vhjo7MVTonSCwwmhMjYDVwxbYDKX+tks5utRm5 SKO8B7SJahjTEN4n5Paq/xbYu/1iDASSuBTm6EU6vq7AFzTzUmtpjg4qcBuWb+W1NVdj 9Vs4YWitpGopqDPp/nEIKdDnodmHVsmqqMszQ8WPOjBClnoolSEFAudPHdp6Gg9ovhKq Cl9g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533T1bN40aSb9fAl1nYlSi0HN+JkbBPvECise3OipCdDQciETLh5 gR0cN4/0GdCz2QfyZxu0PAdpw7f6qhw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzeTqkfSr8kPpHf5jMgKyfBvoARq5AdjkGFP/QKuTdSExArTD0uNDG5Wv1h+xgodK4+pPb/Rw== X-Received: by 2002:a4a:c592:: with SMTP id x18mr12046907oop.9.1615047136888; Sat, 06 Mar 2021 08:12:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from Davids-MacBook-Pro.local ([8.48.134.40]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id k68sm1373538otk.28.2021.03.06.08.12.15 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 06 Mar 2021 08:12:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: VRF leaking doesn't work To: Greesha Mikhalkin , netdev@vger.kernel.org References: From: David Ahern Message-ID: <5b2595ed-bf5b-2775-405c-bb5031fd2095@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2021 09:12:15 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On 3/2/21 3:57 AM, Greesha Mikhalkin wrote: > Main goal is that 100.255.254.3 should be reachable from vrf2. But > after this setup it doesn’t work. When i run `ping -I vrf2 > 100.255.254.3` it sends packets from source address that belongs to > vlan1 enslaved by vrf1. I can see in tcpdump that ICMP packets are > sent and then returned to source address but they're not returned to > ping command for some reason. To be clear `ping -I vrf1 …` works fine. I remember this case now: VRF route leaking works for fowarding, but not local traffic. If a packet arrives in vrf2, it should get forwarded to vrf1 and on to its destination. If the reverse route exists then round trip traffic works.