Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that routing entry?
Subsystems (2)
Hi, David
With ubuntu 12.04, I run the following to reproduce this defect.
1) Configure an interface
ifconfig eth1 150.0.0.1/24 up
2) Add routing entry via that interface address
route add -net 200.0.0.0/24 gw 150.0.0.1
3) Change the ip address on that interface as shown below. ifconfig eth1 151.0.0.1/24 up
4) Check netlink messages with "ip monitor all". There is no route delete netlink message.
[ADDR]Deleted 3: eth1 inet 150.0.0.1/24 brd 150.0.0.255 scope global eth1
[ROUTE]Deleted 150.0.0.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 150.0.0.1 [ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 150.0.0.255 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope link src 150.0.0.1 [ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 150.0.0.0 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope link src 150.0.0.1 [ROUTE]Deleted local 150.0.0.1 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope host src 150.0.0.1 [NEIGH]224.0.0.251 dev eth1 lladdr 01:00:5e:00:00:fb NOARP
[NEIGH]224.0.0.22 dev eth1 lladdr 01:00:5e:00:00:16 NOARP
[ADDR]3: eth1 inet 151.0.0.1/16 brd 151.0.255.255 scope global eth1
[ROUTE]local 151.0.0.1 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope host src 151.0.0.1 [ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.255.255 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1 [ROUTE]151.0.0.0/16 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1 [ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.0.0 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1
[ADDR]Deleted 3: eth1 inet 151.0.0.1/16 brd 151.0.255.255 scope global eth1
[ROUTE]Deleted 151.0.0.0/16 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1 [ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 151.0.255.255 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1 [ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 151.0.0.0 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1 [ROUTE]Deleted local 151.0.0.1 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope host src 151.0.0.1 [NEIGH]224.0.0.22 dev eth1 lladdr 01:00:5e:00:00:16 NOARP
[ADDR]3: eth1 inet 151.0.0.1/24 brd 151.0.0.255 scope global eth1
[ROUTE]local 151.0.0.1 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope host src 151.0.0.1 [ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.0.255 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1 [ROUTE]151.0.0.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1 [ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.0.0 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1
There is no netlink message to notify that 200.0.0.0/24 is deleted. But in fact, this 200.0.0.0/24 route item disappears.
I checked the source code, and I found the following is the process to delete static routes when the attached interface is deleted.
1) | fib_netdev_event() {
1) | fib_disable_ip() {
1) 1.284 us | fib_sync_down_dev();
1) | fib_flush() {
1) | fib_table_flush() {
1) 0.129 us | fib_release_info();
1) 0.351 us | fib_release_info();
1) 4.605 us | }
1) | fib_table_flush() {
1) 0.096 us | fib_release_info();
1) 0.255 us | fib_release_info();
1) 4.770 us | }
1) + 11.787 us | }
1) ! 315.273 us | }
1) ! 315.888 us | }But there is no netlink message sent here.
Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that 200.0.0.0/24 routing entry?
Best Regards!
Zhu Yanjun
Hi, all
Please help to look at this problem. And give us an official explanation. Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that routing entry?
Thanks a lot.
Zhu Yanjun
Quoted 67 lines · zhuyj
Hi, David
With ubuntu 12.04, I run the following to reproduce this defect.
1) Configure an interface
ifconfig eth1 150.0.0.1/24 up2) Add routing entry via that interface address
route add -net 200.0.0.0/24 gw 150.0.0.13) Change the ip address on that interface as shown below. ifconfig eth1 151.0.0.1/24 up
4) Check netlink messages with "ip monitor all". There is no route delete netlink message.
[ADDR]Deleted 3: eth1 inet 150.0.0.1/24 brd 150.0.0.255 scope global eth1
[ROUTE]Deleted 150.0.0.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 150.0.0.1 [ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 150.0.0.255 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope link src 150.0.0.1 [ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 150.0.0.0 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope link src 150.0.0.1 [ROUTE]Deleted local 150.0.0.1 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope host src 150.0.0.1 [NEIGH]224.0.0.251 dev eth1 lladdr 01:00:5e:00:00:fb NOARP
[NEIGH]224.0.0.22 dev eth1 lladdr 01:00:5e:00:00:16 NOARP
[ADDR]3: eth1 inet 151.0.0.1/16 brd 151.0.255.255 scope global eth1
[ROUTE]local 151.0.0.1 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope host src 151.0.0.1 [ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.255.255 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1 [ROUTE]151.0.0.0/16 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1 [ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.0.0 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1
[ADDR]Deleted 3: eth1 inet 151.0.0.1/16 brd 151.0.255.255 scope global eth1
[ROUTE]Deleted 151.0.0.0/16 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1 [ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 151.0.255.255 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1 [ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 151.0.0.0 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1 [ROUTE]Deleted local 151.0.0.1 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope host src 151.0.0.1 [NEIGH]224.0.0.22 dev eth1 lladdr 01:00:5e:00:00:16 NOARP
[ADDR]3: eth1 inet 151.0.0.1/24 brd 151.0.0.255 scope global eth1
[ROUTE]local 151.0.0.1 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope host src 151.0.0.1 [ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.0.255 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1 [ROUTE]151.0.0.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1 [ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.0.0 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1There is no netlink message to notify that 200.0.0.0/24 is deleted. But in fact, this 200.0.0.0/24 route item disappears.
I checked the source code, and I found the following is the process to delete static routes when the attached interface is deleted.
1) | fib_netdev_event() { 1) | fib_disable_ip() { 1) 1.284 us | fib_sync_down_dev(); 1) | fib_flush() { 1) | fib_table_flush() { 1) 0.129 us | fib_release_info(); 1) 0.351 us | fib_release_info(); 1) 4.605 us | } 1) | fib_table_flush() { 1) 0.096 us | fib_release_info(); 1) 0.255 us | fib_release_info(); 1) 4.770 us | } 1) + 11.787 us | } 1) ! 315.273 us | } 1) ! 315.888 us | }But there is no netlink message sent here.
Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that 200.0.0.0/24 routing entry?
Best Regards!
Zhu Yanjun
Quoted 8 lines · On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 17:15:48 +0800 zhuyj <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 8 lines
With ubuntu 12.04, I run the following to reproduce this defect.
1) Configure an interface
ifconfig eth1 150.0.0.1/24 up2) Add routing entry via that interface address route add -net 200.0.0.0/24 gw 150.0.0.1
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
3) Change the ip address on that interface as shown below. ifconfig eth1 151.0.0.1/24 up
4) Check netlink messages with "ip monitor all". There is no route delete netlink message.
With IPv4 there are several cases where there is a non-notified implicit route withdrawal. This is not something that can be fixed. There are two issues:
1. with large backbone size route tables (ie 1M routes), the number of notification messages becomes a bottleneck and would be unreliable
2. the existing routing daemons (quagga, bird, etc) all understand/expect the existing semantics
Quoted 17 lines · Stephen Hemminger
Quoted 8 lines · On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 17:15:48 +0800 zhuyj <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 8 lines
With ubuntu 12.04, I run the following to reproduce this defect.
1) Configure an interface
ifconfig eth1 150.0.0.1/24 up2) Add routing entry via that interface address route add -net 200.0.0.0/24 gw 150.0.0.1
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
3) Change the ip address on that interface as shown below. ifconfig eth1 151.0.0.1/24 up
4) Check netlink messages with "ip monitor all". There is no route delete netlink message.
Quoted 8 lines
With IPv4 there are several cases where there is a non-notified implicit route withdrawal. This is not something that can be fixed. There are two issues:
1. with large backbone size route tables (ie 1M routes), the number of notification messages becomes a bottleneck and would be unreliable
2. the existing routing daemons (quagga, bird, etc) all understand/expect the existing semantics
Hi,
Thanks a lot.
Best Regards!
Zhu Yanjun