On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 7:40 AM Neale Ranns <ne...@graphiant.com> wrote:
> > > i would argue the contrary, not subnetting (i.e. using /32) is not a valid > approach to subnetting. > Again: GCP does this. Calico for K8s (the most used K8s CNI plugin) does this. Its basically the direction Cloud is going in the generic. > > > The BSD approach where you have to independent /32s on each side and a > routing entry for the other side. Or a connected route /31 or larger. The > act of configuring an address with a prefix is really a shortcut for > configuring the address _and_ the connected prefix of course. > > > > And it’s an expression that there are other hosts attached to this link so > you don’t need to add /32 routes for any such hosts. IOW it’s a way of say > stating that there is a sub-network of hosts attached to this router. And > my routing protocol can advertise this. > > If you add only a /32 you make none of those statements, and any routing > protocol, if it still works over links without a subnet, does not include > (without rediest static) reachability to those attached hosts. IOW it’s > broken 😊, or at a minimum not standard IP networking. > > Of course I may be wrong, I often am, but this was my position when > writing IP functionality for VPP, so there may be other surprises … > > > > Sounds to me like the SAS algorithm needs a bit of work. > > > > Now on that topic I heartily agree 😊 my SAS implementation is flawed in > that it uses the glean adjacency to store the link’s receive address. P2p > links don’t have a glean adj, hence SAS is broken on p2p links. It was an > oversight on my part, I know I need to fix it. > > My goal with the SAS implementation done that way was to be able to do > basic SAS without needing the interface addresses programmed via ‘set int > ip adrr …’, but rather completely through the RIB (i.e. ip route add …). > This is more like what one might expect at the bottom of a router stack. To > say that goal is imcomplete, is an understatement :( > > The p2p fix, using the directly added IP link addresses is easy, it’s here: > > https://gerrit.fd.io/r/c/vpp/+/32801 > > > > (I'd like to use it for ICMP error sending too, where it also should > handle the case of picking a source address from another interface than the > outgoing interface). > And NBMA interfaces? Ed > > > SAS++ 😊 > > > > /neale > > > > Cheers, > > Ole > > > > > From: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> on behalf of Artem > Glazychev via lists.fd.io <artem.glazychev=xored....@lists.fd.io> > > > Date: Wednesday, 4 August 2021 at 08:37 > > > To: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> > > > Subject: [vpp-dev] memif: failed: no source address for egress interface > > > > > > Hello, > > > Found a problem with some types of interfaces. > > > > > > For example, memif. When I'm creating memif interfaces and run ping I > see: > > > > > > DBGvpp# ping 10.10.2.1 > > > Failed: no source address for egress interface > > > ... > > > > > > But it is worth mentioning that I am setting /32 mask for IP address > > > > > > Managed to fix IP mode with these patches: > https://gerrit.fd.io/r/c/vpp/+/32801, https://gerrit.fd.io/r/c/vpp/+/33303 > > > > > > But Ethernet mode still doesn't work. > > > > > > ============================== > > > > > > There was already a similar topic: > https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/topic/84038840 > > > > > > Created a jira issue with details: https://jira.fd.io/browse/VPP-1992 > > > > > > Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#19933): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/19933 Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/84656776/21656 Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
