On 9/23/20 1:12 PM, Michael Jeanson wrote:
>
> Just a final clarification, the asymmetric setup would have no return
> route in VRF 2 and only test the TTL case since the others would fail?
correct. add a statement about it representing a customer setup so it is
clear such a config is a 1-off
On 2020-09-23 14 h 46, David Ahern wrote:
On 9/23/20 11:03 AM, Michael Jeanson wrote:
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
On 9/23/20 11:03 AM, Michael Jeanson wrote:
> 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 pa
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 f
On 2020-09-22 21 h 59, David Ahern wrote:
On 9/22/20 7:52 AM, Michael Jeanson wrote:
the test setup is bad. You have r1 dropping the MTU in VRF red, but not
telling VRF red how to send back the ICMP. e.g., for IPv4 add:
ip -netns r1 ro add vrf red 172.16.1.0/24 dev blue
do the same for v6
On 9/22/20 7:52 AM, Michael Jeanson wrote:
>>>
>>> the test setup is bad. You have r1 dropping the MTU in VRF red, but not
>>> telling VRF red how to send back the ICMP. e.g., for IPv4 add:
>>>
>>>ip -netns r1 ro add vrf red 172.16.1.0/24 dev blue
>>>
>>> do the same for v6.
>>>
>>> Also, I do
- On 21 Sep, 2020, at 15:33, Mathieu Desnoyers
mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com wrote:
> - On Sep 21, 2020, at 3:11 PM, David Ahern dsah...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On 9/21/20 12:44 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>> - On Sep 21, 2020, at 2:36 PM, David Ahern dsah...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>
- On Sep 21, 2020, at 3:11 PM, David Ahern dsah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 9/21/20 12:44 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> - On Sep 21, 2020, at 2:36 PM, David Ahern dsah...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/18/20 12:17 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
Hi,
Here is an updated series of f
On 9/21/20 12:44 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> - On Sep 21, 2020, at 2:36 PM, David Ahern dsah...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On 9/18/20 12:17 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Here is an updated series of fixes for ipv4 and ipv6 which which ensure
>>> the route lookup is performed on th
- On Sep 21, 2020, at 2:36 PM, David Ahern dsah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 9/18/20 12:17 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here is an updated series of fixes for ipv4 and ipv6 which which ensure
>> the route lookup is performed on the right routing table in VRF
>> configurations when se
On 9/18/20 12:17 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is an updated series of fixes for ipv4 and ipv6 which which ensure
> the route lookup is performed on the right routing table in VRF
> configurations when sending TTL expired icmp errors (useful for
> traceroute).
>
> It includes tests
Hi,
Here is an updated series of fixes for ipv4 and ipv6 which which ensure
the route lookup is performed on the right routing table in VRF
configurations when sending TTL expired icmp errors (useful for
traceroute).
It includes tests for both ipv4 and ipv6.
These fixes address specifically addr
12 matches
Mail list logo
