On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 08:42:15PM +0200, Zoltán Elek wrote: > Hi! > > I have a simple scenario, with a veth pair, IP addresses assigned from > the same subnet. They can ping eachother. But when I put one of them > into a VRF (in the example below, I put veth in-vrf into the test-vrf > VRF) the ping fails. My first question: that is the expected behavior? > And my second question: is there any way to overcome this? > > Here are my test commands: > ip link add out-of-vrf type veth peer name in-vrf > ip link set dev out-of-vrf up > ip link set dev in-vrf up > ip link add test-vrf type vrf table 10 > ip link set dev test-vrf up > ip -4 addr add 100.127.253.2/24 dev in-vrf > ip -4 addr add 100.127.253.1/24 dev out-of-vrf > > Then ping works as expected: > ping -c1 -I 100.127.253.1 100.127.253.2 > > After I put the in-vrf into test-vrf, ping fails: > ip link set in-vrf vrf test-vrf up
You need to re-order the FIB rules so that lookup for 100.127.253.1 happens in table 10 and not in the local table: # ip -4 rule add pref 32765 table local # ip -4 rule del pref 0 # ip -4 rule show 1000: from all lookup [l3mdev-table] 32765: from all lookup local 32766: from all lookup main 32767: from all lookup default Bad: ping 16735 [001] 13726.398115: fib:fib_table_lookup: table 255 oif 0 iif 9 proto 0 100.127.253.2/0 -> 100.127.253.1/0 tos 0 scope 0 flags 4 ==> dev out-of-vrf gw 0.0.0.0 src 100.127.253.1 err 0 Good: ping 16665 [001] 13500.937145: fib:fib_table_lookup: table 10 oif 0 iif 9 proto 0 100.127.253.2/0 -> 100.127.253.1/0 tos 0 scope 0 flags 4 ==> dev in-vrf gw 0.0.0.0 src 100.127.253.2 err 0 > > Thanks, > Zoltan Elek, > VI1
