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=-2.8 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,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 C223EC433DB for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 08:35:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93CA564FDE for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 08:35:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232347AbhCJIeh (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Mar 2021 03:34:37 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38888 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229564AbhCJIeU (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Mar 2021 03:34:20 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-x1036.google.com (mail-pj1-x1036.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1036]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B3DAC06174A for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 00:34:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1036.google.com with SMTP id gb6so1199483pjb.0 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 00:34:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rH/Scv3Jah+ZjqfZS1oVxmF90CJ9QMTAda0HLUUJ2YA=; b=pQg4m0h/iA9oNn+cqaxqYoh1Wfb0QsmHcqwK/QAQiCTMr6F+G/wnZSZ1j8hp4IW9s5 ONxtZwHSKrdzIXAkhhnSrDUumh4A6VZKQXR+SRJj4Lq5rcFWwEZg/jSNhWHg/Ii8oBp1 gd0j/gMBS1zCGhhOjKqxO/T8WTIvRsbJfAqibeYnhZ3aAQSJR232SijwhI2a2CLlbNDC /0bO0cS5K8kkBQFSooDkHyEPkX0ooXwT0UegLtJCcZk1RbuBrsJm8Zyj/32JXONxPKyF 8CYzIAsLdXApXMtgSRfpJO0H/0l9vUtglDsaR8NanCrl/bTL/frf66iV16hNy5oXRrlW GOEA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rH/Scv3Jah+ZjqfZS1oVxmF90CJ9QMTAda0HLUUJ2YA=; b=jrbSNILWcOhoRpd648qpMLMpci1yaDVSx+EC7M6fkZALFAg1jsyEBetu2AM5SkS6Hr JSgvedMUc93ySPAbbw/DdmZULROmet7TuPqsVwf9ahKzBzT48GodZS7e3Wk/At4YgEGs bOEwGl1ngiwXMjMNHu9Rus5ZCYoUV58Sgl4FF99ienR++CjHlG+GNBkDjPmpFPc3fU0i cKpOKOG8UyWvFec2Tf5rLCeMJz4KqutU2UaKrd1xyTJbqlM9VC/90OgCyX6x6zYdio2k wfmEq/5hxUcGQ2putcugjpE4Jn78eqR4PBxcut5r57gkgbAqzsoPZJb2g5AwLWJsKDhz jJ7w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532/F00i/hwNnW6AGXNpuNb9n9tTQjm5oF1wjCF+giQWUT2pjsQx UomPQQKwSWHOaNMxZ4hqPlzph9Jcufi7agT7DGUr4kKDIu84qQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzlxsww4ztf2eIBFu67Ag6HiIQOY2q7WE4fYS4AE4zty/nKatf+ii3DRTyPH06ByyLfWSjrLBFDxkuEFz860dk= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:4284:: with SMTP id p4mr2529120pjg.1.1615365259032; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 00:34:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5b2595ed-bf5b-2775-405c-bb5031fd2095@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Greesha Mikhalkin Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 09:34:07 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: VRF leaking doesn't work To: David Ahern Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org I see. When i do `ping -I vrf2` to address that was leaked from vrf1 it selects source address that's set as local in vrf1 routing table. Is this expected behavior? I guess, forwarding packets from vrf1 to vrf2 local address won't help here. 6 mar. 2021 - 17:12, David Ahern : > > 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=E2=80=99t 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 =E2=80=A6` work= s 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.