> On Dec 16, 2016, at 9:12 AM, Sridhar Gaddam <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Daniele Di Proietto <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 
>> 2016-12-12 3:21 GMT-08:00 Sridhar Gaddam <[email protected]>:
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> In our setup, we are using OVS 2.6+dpdk and are noticing that conntrack
>> for
>>> IPv6 traffic is NOT working.
>>> However, the same use-case works fine for Ipv4 traffic.
>>> 
>>> We had a look at OVS 2.6 release notes[1], and it mentions that "Basic
>>> connection tracking for the user space datapath (no ALG, fragmentation or
>>> NAT support yet) is supported".
>>> There is no explicit mention of IPv6. So, can someone please confirm if
>>> conntrack for IPv6 is supported in OVS2.6+dpdk?
>>> 
>>> [1] https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/blob/master/NEWS
>> 
>> IPv6 should be supported.  There are a few testcases in the system
>> userspace testsuite (`make check-system-userspace`) that cover that.
>> 
>> Could you tell us more about your setup?
>> 
> 
> ​
> Sorry for the delay in response. I do not have a local setup to reproduce
> the issue, so was trying to gather some details from the team that
> originally noticed this.
> 
> Basically we are seeing this issue in OpenDaylight use-case when using
> OVS2.6+dpdk along with conntrack.
> 
> A simplified view of the use-case is as follows.
> 1. We have a VM spawned with MAC of "fa:16:3e:6e:9f:b0" and it is sending
> out a Neighbor Solicitation for another VM on the same network.
> 2. We use conntrack for tracking the connections, so the Neighbor
> Solicitation packets initially hit flow (a) in table40, and in table41 the
> ct_state matches to "+inv" and are getting dropped (flow e).
> 3. This behavior (i.e., ct_state=+inv+trk) is seen for ICMPv6 Neighbor
> Solicitation messages and not for other IPv6 TCP/UDP traffic.
> 4. Also, this behavior is NOT seen when using OVS kernel datapath (i.e., in
> table 41, we see that ct_state matches to +new+trk instead of +inv+trk)
> 

This seems to be an inconsistency in handling packets that are not tracked. 
Even Linux kernel conntrack does not track neighbor discovery for obvious 
reasons, but it still attaches a special “notrack” entry with the packet and 
reports it as “NEW”. Flagging ND traffic as “+inv” is probably not the right 
thing to do, but the workaround for now is to not send ND packets to conntrack 
in the first place.

  Jarno

> Srikanth, who is noticing this issue, was also informed by his switch team
> that OVS
> ​conntrack ​
> explicitly treats the IPv6 Neighbor Solicitation as an invalid connection.
> For more details, please see the email thread [*] where this issue is
> discussed.
> 
> We are trying to see if we should bypass conntrack for NDP packets. In the
> meantime, if you know the specific reason why NS packets are treated this
> way, can you please let us know?
> 
> Sample flows:
> a) table=40, n_packets=246, n_bytes=21156, priority=61010,ipv6,dl_src=fa:
> 16:3e:6e:9f:b0,ipv6_src=2001:db8:1234:0:f816:3eff:fe6e:9fb0
> actions=ct(table=41,zone=5002)
> b) table=41, n_packets=0, n_bytes=0,
> priority=62020,ct_state=-new+est-rel-inv+trk
> actions=resubmit(,17)
> c) table=41, n_packets=0, n_bytes=0,
> priority=62020,ct_state=-new-est+rel-inv+trk
> actions=resubmit(,17)
> d) table=41, n_packets=0, n_bytes=0, priority=12806,ct_state=+new+
> trk,ipv6,metadata=0x19a80000000000/0x1fffff0000000000
> actions=ct(commit,zone=5002),resubmit(,17)
> e) table=41, n_packets=246, n_bytes=21156, priority=62020,ct_state=+inv+trk
> actions=drop
> 
> [*] https://lists.opendaylight.org/pipermail/netvirt-dev/
> 2016-December/002527.html
> 
> Thanks,
> --Sridhar.​
> 
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> --Sridhar.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dev mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to