Hi Neale, Thanks for the response. Any plans to differ this behaviour in future to support multiple interfaces in the same subnet?
Regards, Bindiya On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Neale Ranns (nranns) <nra...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > VPP does not support multiple interfaces in the same subnet. > > Your scenario will be a configuration error once: > > https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/8057/ > > is committed. > > > > /neale > > > > *From: *<vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> on behalf of bindiya Kurle < > bindiyaku...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Monday, 7 May 2018 at 07:27 > *To: *"vpp-dev@lists.fd.io" <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> > *Subject: *[vpp-dev] Query on VPP behaviour when IP from same subnet > configured on plain and vlan interface > > > > *Hi,* > > > > 13.0.0.200 -------------------------------|GigabitEthernet1/0/0 (plain > interface)13.0.0.2 > > | > GigabitEthernet1/0/0.111(vlan interface)13.0.0.5 packet to send out > destination IP (13.0.0.200) > > > > Fig 1. > > > > > > I am trying to configure two IP’s belonging to same subnet on plain and a > VLAN interface(refer fig 1).While sending a packet, the ip4-lookup node is > fetching the dpoi_index pertaining to the VLAN interface which in-turn > gives the software index to VLAN interface in lookup. > > If I try same scenario on Linux ,ping to the same destination IP(IP: > 13.0.0.200) works as kernel pick up the plain interface route since that > is the 1st route in its routing table. > > > > *FIB table entry: * > > 13.0.0.2/32 pmtu: 0 > > unicast-ip4-chain > > [@0]: dpo-load-balance: [proto:ip4 index:12 buckets:1 uRPF:16 to:[0:0]] > > [0] [@2]: dpo-receive: 13.0.0.2 on GigabitEthernet1/0/0 > > 13.0.0.5/32 pmtu: 0 > > unicast-ip4-chain > > [@0]: dpo-load-balance: [proto:ip4 index:17 buckets:1 uRPF:22 to:[0:0]] > > [0] [@2]: dpo-receive: 13.0.0.5 on GigabitEthernet1/0/0.111 > > 13.0.0.200/32 pmtu: 0 > > UNRESOLVED > > > > Questions : > > 1. Is there any specific reason why VPP always returns last entry added > for that prefix instead of 1st entry? Can Vpp behaviour be made similar to > Linux kernel Behaviour? > > > > > > Regards, > > Bindiya > > > > > >
