On 21/02/2019 10:01, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> Sorry, my mail client somehow droped your message and I didn't see your reply.
> I find this mail after Nikolay pointed out yesterday.
>
>> Hi and thanks for your reply!
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 10:32:16AM +0800, Ying Xu wrote:
>>> I think the scenario mentioned above is abnormal.
>>
>> Can we agree, that this scenario, if switch A and B were using the
>> current bridge code, has issues right now which it did
>> not have before that patch?
>
> Yes, I agree. But this "regression" could be fixed by setting up correct
> switch configuration. See more explains below.
>
That is irrelevant, if the setup once worked we should not break it unless
it's in RFC requirement violation and RFC 4541 is only suggestive, not required.
>>
>> I also do not quite understand what you mean with "abnormal". Do
>> you think that it is unlikely to have two snooping switches and
>> general queries with a 0.0.0.0 source?
>
> The "abnormal" means we shouldn't use this kind of configuration on
> snooping switch.
>
> We could have general queries with a 0.0.0.0 source, but these queries
> are only from proxy Querier, not from real Querier.
>
> Based on RFC 4541,
> 2.1.1. IGMP Forwarding Rules
> b) The arrival port for IGMP Queries (sent by multicast routers)
> where the source address is not 0.0.0.0.
>
> The 0.0.0.0 address represents a special case where the switch
> is proxying IGMP Queries for faster network convergence, but is
> not itself the Querier. The switch does not use its own IP
> address (even if it has one), because this would cause the
> Queries to be seen as coming from a newly elected Querier. The
> 0.0.0.0 address is used to indicate that the Query packets are
> NOT from a multicast router.
>
> This paragraph specified "0.0.0.0" is only for switch proxying queries.
> It should not be used as a IGMP Querier.
>
> "because this would cause the Queries to be seen as coming from a newly
> elected Querier" means other address could be elected as a Querier but
> "0.0.0.0" should not.
>
But this change hasn't been incorporated, has it ? A 0.0.0.0 address currently
will always win the election and silence all of the rest. Current bridge state
is simply broken for some cases because of that.
> AFAIK, most verdors(Cisco, HW, etc. expect H3C) use none-zero address
> as default address on proxying switches. But H3C also respect the
> b) section.
>
>>
>> Note that with the current bridge code and according to RFC3376
>> and RFC2236, as soon as a query with a 0.0.0.0 source is sent somewhere
>> in the broadcast domain, it will become the selected querier [*].
>
> Yes, In RFC 3376
>
> 6.6.2. Querier Election
>
> IGMPv3 elects a single querier per subnet using the same querier
> election mechanism as IGMPv2, namely by IP address. When a router
> receives a query with a lower IP address, it sets the Other-Querier-
> Present timer to Other Querier Present Interval and ceases to send
> queries on the network if it was the previously elected querier.
> After its Other-Querier Present timer expires, it should begin
> sending General Queries.
>
> It only said we should select lower IP address as Querier, but didn't specify
> the "0.0.0.0" address.
>
> While in the later RFC 4541
>
> Abstract
> This memo describes the recommendations for Internet Group Management
> Protocol (IGMP) and Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) snooping
> switches. These are based on best current practices for IGMPv2, with
> further considerations for IGMPv3- and MLDv2-snooping.
>
> And section 2.1.1. IGMP Forwarding Rules(I just pasted above). It did
> specify the "0.0.0.0" address issue.
>
> I think we should respect the later and accurater standard, shouldn't we?
>
No if it is breaking valid setups, RFC 4541 is only a suggestion and in this case
the bridge has worked like that for a long time. The current situation is broken
because a 0.0.0.0 querier will win the election always and will silence the rest.
If it's not involved in the election then we'll have snooping effectively disabled
unless a non-zero querier shows up which again sounds wrong and was already pointed
out by Linus. I think the best course of action is to revert this change.
>>
>>
>>> The source of query indicats that is a real router or only a switch.(0.0.0.0
>>> means switch,non-zero means router).
>>> In the scenario above,the switch A was selected to be a querier that means A
>>> performs as a router,
>>> so switch A should config its query source address to non-zero,and then Host A
>>> can recieve the traffic from B.
>>
>> Even if in the described scenario switch A were configured to use a a non-zero
>> source address to become a router, so that switch B would mark the port
>> to switch A as a multicast router port, switch A would still loose
>> in the querier election right now, as 0.0.0.0 is lower (RFC3376, RFC2236). So
>> switch B would then become the selected querier with its 0.0.0.0 source
>> and switch A would become silent even though it had a non-zero
>> source address.
>>
>> And then we would have the same issue again, only swapped between
>> host+switch A and host+switch B.
>>
>> Would you agree, does that make sense?
>>
>
> Yes, that's why Ying Xu said the topology is "abnormal", or illegal. Because
> in a correct configured topology, there should has a Querier with none-zero
> IP address.
>
Certainly not illegal.
>> Regards, Linus
>>
>>
>> [*]: Looking at br_ip4_multicast_select_querier():
>>
>> If previously selected querier were 0.0.0.0, it would accept any
>> source as a new querier ("!br->ip4_querier.addr.u.ip4"). However,
>> if the previously selected querier were non-zero, a query with
>> 0.0.0.0 would win, too
>> ("ntohl(saddr) <= ntohl(br->ip4_querier.addr.u.ip4)").
>
> In RFC 3810
>
> 7.6.2. Querier Election
> When a router starts operating on a subnet, by default it
> considers itself as being the Querier.
>
> When a router receives a query with a lower IPv6 address than its
> own, it sets the Other Querier Present timer to Other Querier Present
> Timeout; if it was previously in Querier state, it switches to Non-
> Querier state and ceases to send queries on the link.
>
> All MLDv2 queries MUST be sent with the FE80::/64 link-local source
> address prefix.
>
> MLDv2 also sepcified the default Querier is itself and electe a lower adddress
> as new Querier. And the source address should be link-loacl source address
> instead of 0("::"). This is another evidence that we should not use "0.0.0.0"
> as a Querier. So I think we should fix the IPv4 election in function
> br_ip4_multicast_select_querier().
>
> This looks like a little extreme and may have "regression", but the "regression"
> should be fixed by setting up correct router/switch configuration.
>
> What do you think?
>
Removing 0.0.0.0 from the election will effectively disable snooping even if there's
a configured bridge unless it has an address. You can see that this will end up in
people having suddenly their multicast flooded with current setups, right ?
Any big behaviour change like that should be optional, but I don't think we need
another option as this is not so big of a deal because we're not breaking any
required behaviour.
In case you decide to follow the option path, please use the new boolopt api to avoid
adding new fields to the bridge, this should be an on/off thing. I still vote for a
revert though.
> Regards
> Hangbin
>
Thanks,
Nik
