OpenBMC Network Route Management: Metric and Static Route config support

OpenBMC Network Route Management: Metric and Static Route config support

[raviteja bailapudi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 632 bytes --]

Hi Team

We have hit network routing issues while using Static IPv4 addresses on
both eth0 and eth1,  as both default gateways at the interfaces were of the
same metric value. To solve this problem we are planning to provide an
interface for admins to set the metric value for the gateway while setting
up the Static IPv4 network on BMC.


To enable users to connect from outside-subnet clients, we also need to
support static routes on BMC.


I have started a thread in redfish forum as well

https://redfishforum.com/thread/683/network-routing-table-management-support


Please share your views on the same.



Regards,

Raviteja

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2241 bytes --]

Re: OpenBMC Network Route Management: Metric and Static Route config support

[Jiaqing Zhao]

Hi, Raviteja

Can you help explain the routing issue you met?

I've also met a metric-related issue. When there are 2 interfaces, one use DHCP,
the other use Static, systemd-networkd sets the metric 1024 on the DHCP-assigned
default routev (metric for static default gateway is 0), which causing peers
only reachable via the DHCP-assigned default route cannot be accessed.

And in current OpenBMC implementation, I think we should allow setting null to
Gateway of IPv4StaticAddress to not set default route on that interface.

Thanks,
Jiaqing

On 2022-06-22 18:50, raviteja bailapudi wrote:
> Hi Team
> 
> We have hit network routing issues while using Static IPv4 addresses on
> both eth0 and eth1,  as both default gateways at the interfaces were of the
> same metric value. To solve this problem we are planning to provide an
> interface for admins to set the metric value for the gateway while setting
> up the Static IPv4 network on BMC.
> 
> 
> To enable users to connect from outside-subnet clients, we also need to
> support static routes on BMC.
> 
> 
> I have started a thread in redfish forum as well
> 
> https://redfishforum.com/thread/683/network-routing-table-management-support
> 
> 
> Please share your views on the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Raviteja
> 

Re: OpenBMC Network Route Management: Metric and Static Route config support

[Ratan Gupta]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 993 bytes --]

Hi Raviteja,

Are you mentioning that both the default gateways are pingable and the
kernel picks up the one which is not desirable by you and you want to
control which one to be picked up by configuring the metric value?

Ratan

On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 4:20 PM raviteja bailapudi <
raviteja28031990@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Team
>
> We have hit network routing issues while using Static IPv4 addresses on
> both eth0 and eth1,  as both default gateways at the interfaces were of the
> same metric value. To solve this problem we are planning to provide an
> interface for admins to set the metric value for the gateway while setting
> up the Static IPv4 network on BMC.
>
>
> To enable users to connect from outside-subnet clients, we also need to
> support static routes on BMC.
>
>
> I have started a thread in redfish forum as well
>
>
> https://redfishforum.com/thread/683/network-routing-table-management-support
>
>
> Please share your views on the same.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Raviteja
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2909 bytes --]

Re: OpenBMC Network Route Management: Metric and Static Route config support

[raviteja bailapudi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1271 bytes --]

Hi Ratan
Yes, Clients will  have control on the routing table by configuring the
metric value while configuring IPv4 Static Address.

Regards,
Raviteja

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 2:09 PM Ratan Gupta <ratankgupta31@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Raviteja,
>
> Are you mentioning that both the default gateways are pingable and the
> kernel picks up the one which is not desirable by you and you want to
> control which one to be picked up by configuring the metric value?
>
> Ratan
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 4:20 PM raviteja bailapudi <
> raviteja28031990@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Team
>>
>> We have hit network routing issues while using Static IPv4 addresses on
>> both eth0 and eth1,  as both default gateways at the interfaces were of the
>> same metric value. To solve this problem we are planning to provide an
>> interface for admins to set the metric value for the gateway while setting
>> up the Static IPv4 network on BMC.
>>
>>
>> To enable users to connect from outside-subnet clients, we also need to
>> support static routes on BMC.
>>
>>
>> I have started a thread in redfish forum as well
>>
>>
>> https://redfishforum.com/thread/683/network-routing-table-management-support
>>
>>
>> Please share your views on the same.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Raviteja
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3593 bytes --]

Re: OpenBMC Network Route Management: Metric and Static Route config support

[raviteja bailapudi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3739 bytes --]

Hi, Jiaqing

We have noticed an issue while using Static IPv4 addresses on both eth0 and
eth1.
We have configured a static private IP with the matching subnet of Laptop
Connected on eth0 and  configured a static public IP on eth1.
Both routes have got the metric value 0. eth0 route is the first entry of
the routing table which was being used for routing.


Ping to eth1 IP <9.x.x.84> does not work and that Eth0 private IP pings
from the laptop connected.

* IP  Config:*


2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen
1000

    link/ether 08:94:ef:82:4c:76 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff

    inet 169.254.7.123/16 brd 169.254.255.255 scope link eth0

       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever

    inet 10.x.x.100/24 brd 10.6.6.255 scope global eth0.          —>
Private IP (Connected to laptop)

       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever

    inet6 fe80::a94:efff:fe82:4c76/64 scope link

       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever

3: eth1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen
1000

    link/ether 08:94:ef:82:4c:77 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff

    inet 9.x.x.84/24 brd 9.x.x.255 scope global eth1.               —>
Public IP

       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever

    inet6 fe80::a94:efff:fe82:4c77/64 scope link

       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever



* Routing table:*

Kernel IP routing table

Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags   MSS   Window  irtt
Iface

0.0.0.0                10.x.x.1             0.0.0.0           UG         0
    0           0   eth0

0.0.0.0                 9.x.x.1              0.0.0.0           UG        0
      0           0   eth1  <<==== not pingable.

9.x.x.0                 0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U          0        0
          0   eth1

10.x.x.0               0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U          0
0          0   eth0

169.254.0.0        0.0.0.0         255.255.0.0        U          0         0
        0   eth0



But with DHCP enabled on eth1, dhcp subnet with metric value 1024 was
always at the bottom and was reachable
as DHCP routes  get priority over static routes.



Regards,

Raviteja

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 12:34 PM Jiaqing Zhao <jiaqing.zhao@linux.intel.com>
wrote:

> Hi, Raviteja
>
> Can you help explain the routing issue you met?
>
> I've also met a metric-related issue. When there are 2 interfaces, one use
> DHCP,
> the other use Static, systemd-networkd sets the metric 1024 on the
> DHCP-assigned
> default routev (metric for static default gateway is 0), which causing
> peers
> only reachable via the DHCP-assigned default route cannot be accessed.
>
> And in current OpenBMC implementation, I think we should allow setting
> null to
> Gateway of IPv4StaticAddress to not set default route on that interface.
>
> Thanks,
> Jiaqing
>
> On 2022-06-22 18:50, raviteja bailapudi wrote:
> > Hi Team
> >
> > We have hit network routing issues while using Static IPv4 addresses on
> > both eth0 and eth1,  as both default gateways at the interfaces were of
> the
> > same metric value. To solve this problem we are planning to provide an
> > interface for admins to set the metric value for the gateway while
> setting
> > up the Static IPv4 network on BMC.
> >
> >
> > To enable users to connect from outside-subnet clients, we also need to
> > support static routes on BMC.
> >
> >
> > I have started a thread in redfish forum as well
> >
> >
> https://redfishforum.com/thread/683/network-routing-table-management-support
> >
> >
> > Please share your views on the same.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Raviteja
> >
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 11281 bytes --]

Re: OpenBMC Network Route Management: Metric and Static Route config support

[Sunitha Harish]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3845 bytes --]


On 23-06-2022 15:57, raviteja bailapudi wrote:
> Hi, Jiaqing
>
> We have noticed an issue while using Static IPv4 addresses on both 
> eth0 and eth1.
> We have configured a static private IP with the matching subnet of 
> Laptop Connected on eth0 andconfigured a static public IP on eth1.
> Both routes have got the metric value 0. eth0 route is the first entry 
> of the routing table which was being used for routing.
>
>
> Ping to eth1 IP <9.x.x.84> does not work and that Eth0 private IP 
> pings from the laptop connected.
>
> *IPConfig:*
>
>
> 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast 
> qlen 1000
>
> link/ether 08:94:ef:82:4c:76 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
>
> inet 169.254.7.123/16 <http://169.254.7.123/16> brd 169.254.255.255 
> scope link eth0
>
> valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
>
> inet 10.x.x.100/24 brd 10.6.6.255 scope global eth0.—> Private IP 
> (Connected to laptop)
>
> valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
>
> inet6 fe80::a94:efff:fe82:4c76/64 scope link
>
> valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
>
> 3: eth1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast 
> qlen 1000
>
> link/ether 08:94:ef:82:4c:77 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
>
> inet 9.x.x.84/24 brd 9.x.x.255 scope global eth1. —> Public IP
>
> valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
>
> inet6 fe80::a94:efff:fe82:4c77/64 scope link
>
> valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
>
>
>
> *Routing table:*
>
> Kernel IP routing table
>
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS WindowirttIface
>
> 0.0.0.010.x.x.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
>
> 0.0.0.0 9.x.x.10.0.0.0 UG00 0 eth1<<==== not pingable.
>
> 9.x.x.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U00 0 eth1
>
> 10.x.x.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U0 00 eth0
>
> 169.254.0.00.0.0.0 255.255.0.0U0 00 eth0
>
>
>
> But with DHCP enabled on eth1, dhcp subnet with metric value 1024 was 
> always at the bottom and was reachable
> as DHCP routesget priority over static routes.
>
>
Its good if Redfish has a way to set the metric value as an optional 
parameter while user PATCHes the Static IP address. This can be used by 
phosphor-networkd to set the route priority on that interface while 
adding route for this IP.

>
> Regards,
>
> Raviteja
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 12:34 PM Jiaqing Zhao 
> <jiaqing.zhao@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>     Hi, Raviteja
>
>     Can you help explain the routing issue you met?
>
>     I've also met a metric-related issue. When there are 2 interfaces,
>     one use DHCP,
>     the other use Static, systemd-networkd sets the metric 1024 on the
>     DHCP-assigned
>     default routev (metric for static default gateway is 0), which
>     causing peers
>     only reachable via the DHCP-assigned default route cannot be accessed.
>
>     And in current OpenBMC implementation, I think we should allow
>     setting null to
>     Gateway of IPv4StaticAddress to not set default route on that
>     interface.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Jiaqing
>
>     On 2022-06-22 18:50, raviteja bailapudi wrote:
>     > Hi Team
>     >
>     > We have hit network routing issues while using Static IPv4
>     addresses on
>     > both eth0 and eth1,  as both default gateways at the interfaces
>     were of the
>     > same metric value. To solve this problem we are planning to
>     provide an
>     > interface for admins to set the metric value for the gateway
>     while setting
>     > up the Static IPv4 network on BMC.
>     >
>     >
>     > To enable users to connect from outside-subnet clients, we also
>     need to
>     > support static routes on BMC.
>     >
>     >
>     > I have started a thread in redfish forum as well
>     >
>     >
>     https://redfishforum.com/thread/683/network-routing-table-management-support
>     >
>     >
>     > Please share your views on the same.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Regards,
>     >
>     > Raviteja
>     >
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 14767 bytes --]

Re: OpenBMC Network Route Management: Metric and Static Route config support

[raviteja bailapudi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5423 bytes --]

Hi All


Gentle reminder for the feedback on Static route feature


I have pushed a DMTF proposal and DMTF PR for adding static route
configuration to EthernetInterface schema.

Here is DMTF redfish PR to enable redfish static route configuration
https://github.com/DMTF/Redfish/pull/5464


This PR adds IPv4StaticRoutes resource under EthernetInterface schema which
allows clients to configure multiple static routes per interface.

Example:

"IPv4StaticRoutes": [

     {

            "NextHopAddress": "192.168.1.1",

            "DestinationAddress": "192.168.1.2",

            "SubnetMask": "255.255.255.255"

     },

     {

            "NextHopAddress": "192.168.2.1",

            "DestinationAddress": "192.1.2.0",

            "SubnetMask": "255.255.255.0"

     }]


This PR was reviewed and discussed in the DMTF meeting recently and one of
the suggestion from DMTF members were to check for community interest in
having this use case.


Would like to hear community views in allowing the user to add a static
route.


Thanks,

Raviteja

On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 2:55 PM Sunitha Harish <sunithaharish04@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> On 23-06-2022 15:57, raviteja bailapudi wrote:
>
> Hi, Jiaqing
>
> We have noticed an issue while using Static IPv4 addresses on both eth0
> and eth1.
> We have configured a static private IP with the matching subnet of Laptop
> Connected on eth0 and  configured a static public IP on eth1.
> Both routes have got the metric value 0. eth0 route is the first entry of
> the routing table which was being used for routing.
>
>
> Ping to eth1 IP <9.x.x.84> does not work and that Eth0 private IP pings
> from the laptop connected.
>
> * IP  Config:*
>
>
> 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen
> 1000
>
>     link/ether 08:94:ef:82:4c:76 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
>
>     inet 169.254.7.123/16 brd 169.254.255.255 scope link eth0
>
>        valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
>
>     inet 10.x.x.100/24 brd 10.6.6.255 scope global eth0.          —>
> Private IP (Connected to laptop)
>
>        valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
>
>     inet6 fe80::a94:efff:fe82:4c76/64 scope link
>
>        valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
>
> 3: eth1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen
> 1000
>
>     link/ether 08:94:ef:82:4c:77 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
>
>     inet 9.x.x.84/24 brd 9.x.x.255 scope global eth1.               —>
> Public IP
>
>        valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
>
>     inet6 fe80::a94:efff:fe82:4c77/64 scope link
>
>        valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
>
>
>
> * Routing table:*
>
> Kernel IP routing table
>
> Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags   MSS   Window  irtt
> Iface
>
> 0.0.0.0                10.x.x.1             0.0.0.0           UG         0
>       0           0   eth0
>
> 0.0.0.0                 9.x.x.1              0.0.0.0           UG        0
>       0           0   eth1  <<==== not pingable.
>
> 9.x.x.0                 0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U          0
>   0           0   eth1
>
> 10.x.x.0               0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U          0
>   0          0   eth0
>
> 169.254.0.0        0.0.0.0         255.255.0.0        U          0
>   0          0   eth0
>
>
>
> But with DHCP enabled on eth1, dhcp subnet with metric value 1024 was
> always at the bottom and was reachable
> as DHCP routes  get priority over static routes.
>
>
> Its good if Redfish has a way to set the metric value as an optional
> parameter while user PATCHes the Static IP address. This can be used by
> phosphor-networkd to set the route priority on that interface while adding
> route for this IP.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Raviteja
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 12:34 PM Jiaqing Zhao <
> jiaqing.zhao@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Raviteja
>>
>> Can you help explain the routing issue you met?
>>
>> I've also met a metric-related issue. When there are 2 interfaces, one
>> use DHCP,
>> the other use Static, systemd-networkd sets the metric 1024 on the
>> DHCP-assigned
>> default routev (metric for static default gateway is 0), which causing
>> peers
>> only reachable via the DHCP-assigned default route cannot be accessed.
>>
>> And in current OpenBMC implementation, I think we should allow setting
>> null to
>> Gateway of IPv4StaticAddress to not set default route on that interface.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jiaqing
>>
>> On 2022-06-22 18:50, raviteja bailapudi wrote:
>> > Hi Team
>> >
>> > We have hit network routing issues while using Static IPv4 addresses on
>> > both eth0 and eth1,  as both default gateways at the interfaces were of
>> the
>> > same metric value. To solve this problem we are planning to provide an
>> > interface for admins to set the metric value for the gateway while
>> setting
>> > up the Static IPv4 network on BMC.
>> >
>> >
>> > To enable users to connect from outside-subnet clients, we also need to
>> > support static routes on BMC.
>> >
>> >
>> > I have started a thread in redfish forum as well
>> >
>> >
>> https://redfishforum.com/thread/683/network-routing-table-management-support
>> >
>> >
>> > Please share your views on the same.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Raviteja
>> >
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 18690 bytes --]

Re: OpenBMC Network Route Management: Metric and Static Route config support

[Patrick Williams]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 323 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 07:49:06PM +0530, raviteja bailapudi wrote:

> Gentle reminder for the feedback on Static route feature
> 
> Here is DMTF redfish PR to enable redfish static route configuration
> https://github.com/DMTF/Redfish/pull/5464

How are we suppose to review a private PR?

-- 
Patrick Williams

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: OpenBMC Network Route Management: Metric and Static Route config support

[Ivan Mikhaylov]

On Wed, 2023-06-07 at 20:05 -0500, Patrick Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 07:49:06PM +0530, raviteja bailapudi wrote:
> 
> > Gentle reminder for the feedback on Static route feature
> > 
> > Here is DMTF redfish PR to enable redfish static route
> > configuration
> > https://github.com/DMTF/Redfish/pull/5464
> 
> How are we suppose to review a private PR?
> 

I'd glad to look at this PR too, at least there is multiple proposals
in gerrit about that theme:

https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/phosphor-networkd/+/63619
https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/bmcweb/+/61641
https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/phosphor-dbus-interfaces/+/60448

Is it possible to put it in redfish forum/mail list/gerrit?

Thanks.

Re: OpenBMC Network Route Management: Metric and Static Route config support

[raviteja bailapudi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1222 bytes --]

Hi Patrick/Ivan


Yes the DMFT PR is private and is intended only for DMTF members.

I have captured DMTF mockup schema in the above mail as an example.

Intent of this mail is to get feedback and use-cases of static route
feature on BMC.


would like to hear community interest on allowing static
route configuration by user explicitly.

On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 12:07 PM Ivan Mikhaylov <fr0st61te@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2023-06-07 at 20:05 -0500, Patrick Williams wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 07:49:06PM +0530, raviteja bailapudi wrote:
> >
> > > Gentle reminder for the feedback on Static route feature
> > >
> > > Here is DMTF redfish PR to enable redfish static route
> > > configuration
> > > https://github.com/DMTF/Redfish/pull/5464
> >
> > How are we suppose to review a private PR?
> >
>
> I'd glad to look at this PR too, at least there is multiple proposals
> in gerrit about that theme:
>
> https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/phosphor-networkd/+/63619
> https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/bmcweb/+/61641
> https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/phosphor-dbus-interfaces/+/60448
>
> Is it possible to put it in redfish forum/mail list/gerrit?
>
> Thanks.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4235 bytes --]