Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/4] bonding: balance ICMP echoes in layer3+4 mode | From | Nikolay Aleksandrov <> | Date | Tue, 29 Oct 2019 20:41:49 +0200 |
| |
On 29/10/2019 20:35, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: > On 29/10/2019 15:50, Matteo Croce wrote: >> The bonding uses the L4 ports to balance flows between slaves. As the ICMP >> protocol has no ports, those packets are sent all to the same device: >> >> # tcpdump -qltnni veth0 ip |sed 's/^/0: /' & >> # tcpdump -qltnni veth1 ip |sed 's/^/1: /' & >> # ping -qc1 192.168.0.2 >> 1: IP 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.2: ICMP echo request, id 315, seq 1, length 64 >> 1: IP 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.0.1: ICMP echo reply, id 315, seq 1, length 64 >> # ping -qc1 192.168.0.2 >> 1: IP 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.2: ICMP echo request, id 316, seq 1, length 64 >> 1: IP 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.0.1: ICMP echo reply, id 316, seq 1, length 64 >> # ping -qc1 192.168.0.2 >> 1: IP 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.2: ICMP echo request, id 317, seq 1, length 64 >> 1: IP 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.0.1: ICMP echo reply, id 317, seq 1, length 64 >> >> But some ICMP packets have an Identifier field which is >> used to match packets within sessions, let's use this value in the hash >> function to balance these packets between bond slaves: >> >> # ping -qc1 192.168.0.2 >> 0: IP 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.2: ICMP echo request, id 303, seq 1, length 64 >> 0: IP 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.0.1: ICMP echo reply, id 303, seq 1, length 64 >> # ping -qc1 192.168.0.2 >> 1: IP 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.2: ICMP echo request, id 304, seq 1, length 64 >> 1: IP 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.0.1: ICMP echo reply, id 304, seq 1, length 64 >> >> Aso, let's use a flow_dissector_key which defines FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ICMP, > > Also ? > >> so we can balance pings encapsulated in a tunnel when using mode encap3+4: >> >> # ping -q 192.168.1.2 -c1 >> 0: IP 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.2: GREv0, length 102: IP 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: ICMP echo request, id 585, seq 1, length 64 >> 0: IP 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.0.1: GREv0, length 102: IP 192.168.1.2 > 192.168.1.1: ICMP echo reply, id 585, seq 1, length 64 >> # ping -q 192.168.1.2 -c1 >> 1: IP 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.2: GREv0, length 102: IP 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: ICMP echo request, id 586, seq 1, length 64 >> 1: IP 192.168.0.2 > 192.168.0.1: GREv0, length 102: IP 192.168.1.2 > 192.168.1.1: ICMP echo reply, id 586, seq 1, length 64 >> >> Signed-off-by: Matteo Croce <mcroce@redhat.com> >> --- >> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> > > Hi Matteo, > Wouldn't it be more useful and simpler to use some field to choose the slave (override the hash > completely) in a deterministic way from user-space ? > For example the mark can be interpreted as a slave id in the bonding (should be > optional, to avoid breaking existing setups). ping already supports -m and > anything else can set it, this way it can be used to do monitoring for a specific > slave with any protocol and would be a much simpler change. > User-space can then implement any logic for the monitoring case and as a minor bonus > can monitor the slaves in parallel. And the opposite as well - if people don't want > these balanced for some reason, they wouldn't enable it. >
Ooh I just noticed you'd like to balance replies as well. Nevermind
> Or maybe I've misunderstood why this change is needed. :) > It would actually be nice to include the use-case which brought this on > in the commit message. > > Cheers, > Nik >
| |