lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Strange problem with SCTP+IPv6
From
Date
> On 23. Jun 2020, at 23:31, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:24:59PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
>>> On 23. Jun 2020, at 23:21, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:17:56AM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 01:17:28PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
>>>>> From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
>>>>>> Sent: 22 June 2020 19:33
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 08:01:24PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 22. Jun 2020, at 18:57, Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 08:01:23PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 11:56 PM Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've stumbled upon a strange problem with SCTP and IPv6. If I create an
>>>>>>>>>> sctp listening socket on :: and set the IPV6_V6ONLY socket option on it,
>>>>>>>>>> then I make a connection to it using ::1, the connection will drop after
>>>>>>>>>> 2.5 seconds with an ECONNRESET error.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It only happens on SCTP, it doesn't have the issue if you connect to a
>>>>>>>>>> full IPv6 address instead of ::1, and it doesn't happen if you don't
>>>>>>>>>> set IPV6_V6ONLY. I have verified current end of tree kernel.org.
>>>>>>>>>> I tried on an ARM system and x86_64.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I haven't dug into the kernel to see if I could find anything yet, but I
>>>>>>>>>> thought I would go ahead and report it. I am attaching a reproducer.
>>>>>>>>>> Basically, compile the following code:
>>>>>>>>> The code only set IPV6_V6ONLY on server side, so the client side will
>>>>>>>>> still bind all the local ipv4 addresses (as you didn't call bind() to
>>>>>>>>> bind any specific addresses ). Then after the connection is created,
>>>>>>>>> the client will send HB on the v4 paths to the server. The server
>>>>>>>>> will abort the connection, as it can't support v4.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you can work around it by either:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - set IPV6_V6ONLY on client side.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - bind to the specific v6 addresses on the client side.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't see RFC said something about this.
>>>>>>>>> So it may not be a good idea to change the current behaviour
>>>>>>>>> to not establish the connection in this case, which may cause regression.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ok, I understand this. It's a little strange, but I see why it works
>>>>>>>> this way.
>>>>>>> I don't. I would expect it to work as I described in my email.
>>>>>>> Could someone explain me how and why it is behaving different from
>>>>>>> my expectation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks like a bug to me. Testing with this test app here, I can see
>>>>>> the INIT_ACK being sent with a bunch of ipv4 addresses in it and
>>>>>> that's unexpected for a v6only socket. As is, it's the server saying
>>>>>> "I'm available at these other addresses too, but not."
>>>>>
>>>>> Does it even make sense to mix IPv4 and IPv6 addresses on the same
>>>>> connection?
>>>>> I don't remember ever seeing both types of address in a message,
>>>>> but may not have looked.
>>>>
>>>> That's an interesting question. Do the RFCs say anything? I would
>>>> assume it was ok unless ipv6only was set.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I also wonder whether the connection should be dropped for an error
>>>>> response on a path that has never been validated.
>>>>
>>>> That actually bothered me a bit more. Shouldn't it stay up if any path
>>>> is up? That's kind of the whole point of multihoming.
>>>
>>> Michael explained it on the other email. What he described is what I
>>> observed in my tests.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH the whole 'multi-homing' part of SCTP sucks.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so.
>>>>
>>>>> The IP addresses a server needs to bind to depend on where the
>>>>> incoming connection will come from.
>>>>> A local connection may be able to use a 192.168.x.x address
>>>>> but a remote connection must not - as it may be defined locally
>>>>> at the remote system.
>>>>> But both connections can come into the public (routable) address.
>>>>> We have to tell customers to explicitly configure the local IP
>>>>> addresses - which means the application has to know what they are.
>>>>> Fortunately these apps are pretty static - usually M3UA.
>>>>
>>>> Umm, no, If you have a private address, it better be behind a firewall,
>>>> and the firewall should handle rewriting the packet to fix the addresses.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't appear that Linux netfilter does this. There is a TODO in
>>>> the code for this. But that's how it *should* work.
>>>
>>> Right, we don't support SCTP aware NAT [1].
>>>
>>> 1.https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stewart-behave-sctpnat-04
>> The current version is: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-16
>
> Thanks!
>
>>
>> Another possibility for NAT traversal is UDP encapsulation...
>
> Also not supported.. :-]
But maybe someone wants to implement it. It is supported by FreeBSD, if you
need a peer for testing. Or the userland stack usrsctp supports it. Then you
do not need root privileges to run it.

Best regards
Michael
>
> Best regards,
> Marcelo
>
>>
>> Best regards
>> Michael
>>>
>>> Marcelo
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -corey
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
>>>>> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
>>>>>
>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-09-17 16:07    [W:0.102 / U:0.652 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site