On 2020-09-23 12 h 04, Michael Jeanson wrote:
It should work without asymmetric routing; adding the return route to
the second vrf as I mentioned above fixes the FRAG_NEEDED problem. It
should work for TTL as well.
Adding a second pass on the tests with the return through r2 is fine,
but add a first pass for the more typical case.
Hi,
Before writing new tests I just want to make sure we are trying to fix
the same issue. If I add a return route to the red VRF then we don't
need this patchset because whether the ICMP error are routed using the
table from the source or destination interface they will reach the
source host.
The issue for which this patchset was sent only happens when the
destination interface's VRF doesn't have a route back to the source
host. I guess we might question if this is actually a bug or not.
So the question really is, when a packet is forwarded between VRFs
through route leaking and an icmp error is generated, which table should
be used for the route lookup? And does it depend on the type of icmp
error? (e.g. TTL=1 happens before forwarding, but fragmentation needed
happens after when on the destination interface)
As a side note, I don't mind reworking the tests as you requested even
if the patchset as a whole ends up not being needed and if you think
they are still useful. I just wanted to make sure we understood each other.
Cheers,
Michael
