From: Michael Tuexen <michael.tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
To: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
Cc: Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org>,
David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>,
Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
"linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Strange problem with SCTP+IPv6
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 21:48:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <42823598-7B01-4C62-B896-ACC4449F3AFF@lurchi.franken.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200623213102.GS2491@localhost.localdomain>
> On 23. Jun 2020, at 23:31, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:24:59PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
>>> On 23. Jun 2020, at 23:21, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:17:56AM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 01:17:28PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
>>>>> From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
>>>>>> Sent: 22 June 2020 19:33
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 08:01:24PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 22. Jun 2020, at 18:57, Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 08:01:23PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 11:56 PM Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've stumbled upon a strange problem with SCTP and IPv6. If I create an
>>>>>>>>>> sctp listening socket on :: and set the IPV6_V6ONLY socket option on it,
>>>>>>>>>> then I make a connection to it using ::1, the connection will drop after
>>>>>>>>>> 2.5 seconds with an ECONNRESET error.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It only happens on SCTP, it doesn't have the issue if you connect to a
>>>>>>>>>> full IPv6 address instead of ::1, and it doesn't happen if you don't
>>>>>>>>>> set IPV6_V6ONLY. I have verified current end of tree kernel.org.
>>>>>>>>>> I tried on an ARM system and x86_64.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I haven't dug into the kernel to see if I could find anything yet, but I
>>>>>>>>>> thought I would go ahead and report it. I am attaching a reproducer.
>>>>>>>>>> Basically, compile the following code:
>>>>>>>>> The code only set IPV6_V6ONLY on server side, so the client side will
>>>>>>>>> still bind all the local ipv4 addresses (as you didn't call bind() to
>>>>>>>>> bind any specific addresses ). Then after the connection is created,
>>>>>>>>> the client will send HB on the v4 paths to the server. The server
>>>>>>>>> will abort the connection, as it can't support v4.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you can work around it by either:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - set IPV6_V6ONLY on client side.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - bind to the specific v6 addresses on the client side.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't see RFC said something about this.
>>>>>>>>> So it may not be a good idea to change the current behaviour
>>>>>>>>> to not establish the connection in this case, which may cause regression.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ok, I understand this. It's a little strange, but I see why it works
>>>>>>>> this way.
>>>>>>> I don't. I would expect it to work as I described in my email.
>>>>>>> Could someone explain me how and why it is behaving different from
>>>>>>> my expectation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks like a bug to me. Testing with this test app here, I can see
>>>>>> the INIT_ACK being sent with a bunch of ipv4 addresses in it and
>>>>>> that's unexpected for a v6only socket. As is, it's the server saying
>>>>>> "I'm available at these other addresses too, but not."
>>>>>
>>>>> Does it even make sense to mix IPv4 and IPv6 addresses on the same
>>>>> connection?
>>>>> I don't remember ever seeing both types of address in a message,
>>>>> but may not have looked.
>>>>
>>>> That's an interesting question. Do the RFCs say anything? I would
>>>> assume it was ok unless ipv6only was set.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I also wonder whether the connection should be dropped for an error
>>>>> response on a path that has never been validated.
>>>>
>>>> That actually bothered me a bit more. Shouldn't it stay up if any path
>>>> is up? That's kind of the whole point of multihoming.
>>>
>>> Michael explained it on the other email. What he described is what I
>>> observed in my tests.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH the whole 'multi-homing' part of SCTP sucks.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so.
>>>>
>>>>> The IP addresses a server needs to bind to depend on where the
>>>>> incoming connection will come from.
>>>>> A local connection may be able to use a 192.168.x.x address
>>>>> but a remote connection must not - as it may be defined locally
>>>>> at the remote system.
>>>>> But both connections can come into the public (routable) address.
>>>>> We have to tell customers to explicitly configure the local IP
>>>>> addresses - which means the application has to know what they are.
>>>>> Fortunately these apps are pretty static - usually M3UA.
>>>>
>>>> Umm, no, If you have a private address, it better be behind a firewall,
>>>> and the firewall should handle rewriting the packet to fix the addresses.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't appear that Linux netfilter does this. There is a TODO in
>>>> the code for this. But that's how it *should* work.
>>>
>>> Right, we don't support SCTP aware NAT [1].
>>>
>>> 1.https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stewart-behave-sctpnat-04
>> The current version is: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-16
>
> Thanks!
>
>>
>> Another possibility for NAT traversal is UDP encapsulation...
>
> Also not supported.. :-]
But maybe someone wants to implement it. It is supported by FreeBSD, if you
need a peer for testing. Or the userland stack usrsctp supports it. Then you
do not need root privileges to run it.
Best regards
Michael
>
> Best regards,
> Marcelo
>
>>
>> Best regards
>> Michael
>>>
>>> Marcelo
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -corey
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
>>>>> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
>>>>>
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-23 21:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-21 15:56 Strange problem with SCTP+IPv6 Corey Minyard
2020-06-22 11:52 ` Xin Long
2020-06-22 12:32 ` Michael Tuexen
2020-06-22 16:57 ` Corey Minyard
2020-06-22 18:01 ` Michael Tuexen
2020-06-22 18:32 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2020-06-22 18:34 ` Michael Tuexen
2020-06-23 10:13 ` Xin Long
2020-06-23 13:29 ` Corey Minyard
2020-06-23 15:40 ` Xin Long
2020-06-23 16:00 ` Corey Minyard
2020-06-24 6:58 ` Xin Long
2020-06-26 16:13 ` David Laight
2020-06-26 16:27 ` Michael Tuexen
2020-06-23 13:17 ` David Laight
2020-06-23 16:04 ` [PATCH] sctp: Don't advertise IPv4 addresses if ipv6only is set on the socket minyard
2020-06-24 20:31 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2020-06-24 20:34 ` [PATCH net] " Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2020-06-24 20:53 ` Corey Minyard
2020-06-25 23:12 ` David Miller
2020-06-23 16:17 ` Strange problem with SCTP+IPv6 Corey Minyard
2020-06-23 21:21 ` 'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner'
2020-06-23 21:24 ` Michael Tuexen
2020-06-23 21:31 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2020-06-23 21:48 ` Michael Tuexen [this message]
2020-06-24 7:25 ` Xin Long
2020-06-24 9:18 ` Michael Tuexen
2020-06-23 17:09 ` Michael Tuexen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=42823598-7B01-4C62-B896-ACC4449F3AFF@lurchi.franken.de \
--to=michael.tuexen@lurchi.franken.de \
--cc=David.Laight@aculab.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lucien.xin@gmail.com \
--cc=marcelo.leitner@gmail.com \
--cc=minyard@acm.org \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=vyasevich@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).