On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Ryan Stone <ryst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm going to prefix this question by noting that I realize that the > configuration that I am about to describe is quite nonsensical. > Unfortunately, it seems that under older versions of FreeBSD (possibly > FreeBSD 7-vintage), the configuration mostly "worked", and now at > $WORK I am responsible for making the configuration continue to work > in the future. The customer in this case is completely unwilling to > modify their configuration. > > I have a customer that has configured two different IPs on the same > subnet on two different interfaces. The behaviour that they want is > that if the link on one of the two interfaces goes down, the route to > that subnet will migrate to the other IP on the other interface as a > quasi-failover behaviour. Under FreeBSD 7, we had a daemon that > accomplished this by detecting the link loss and then using "route > change" to move the route to the up interface. If the subnet in > question was 192.168.1.0/24, for example, we could run "route change > 192.1.68.1.0/24 -ifp em1" to migrate the route. > > Running on -head I run into two issues. The first comes out of > r264986, which changes the behaviour of RTM_CHANGE. The code path > changed significantly, but the part that impacts me is that now any > RTM_CHANGE command with the gateway set NULL gets EINVAL immediately > where previously it was allowed. I've hacked around this problem > locally for testing purposes but I really don't understand the code > well enough at this point to see what a real fix would look like. > > The second issue is quite complex. The root cause is that the routing > code sets IFA_ROUTE on any ifaddr that has a local subnet route > associated with it. If I don't migrate this flag to the new ifaddr, > very bizarre behaviour follows. I've done a prototype that detects > when this migration is needed in rtrequest1_fib_change() and it works, > but IFA_ROUTE seems to otherwise be handled in individual L3 protocols > like in and in6, so I'm worried that this is a layering violation. My > patch looks like this: > https://people.freebsd.org/~rstone/patches/route-change-subnet.diff > > > My first, and most important question, is whether a patch that would > allow a subnet route to be migrated to a different interface be > something that would be acceptable in FreeBSD? If so, I need guidance > on what a proper fix for both issues would look like so that I can > implement fixes that I can upstream. > > Thanks, > Ryan > I'm sorry for you Ryan; this sounds like a doozy. I know you said that the customer is unwilling to change, but would they consider using a lagg(4) interface? Using lagg with laggproto=failover is designed to solve exactly this problem. They wouldn't have to recable anything, and they could keep their single IP address. If not, you should see PR 189088; I think it's related. -Alan _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
