Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 19:16:42 +0300 Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: >> > Maybe opt-out? But assuming the event is only generated on >> > active/backup switch over - when would it be okay to ignore >> > the notification? >> >> Let me just clarify, so I'm sure I've not misunderstood you. Do you mean opt-out as in >> make it default on? IMO that would be a problem, large scale setups would suddenly >> start propagating it to upper devices which would cause a lot of unnecessary bcast. >> I meant enable it only if needed, and only on specific ports (second part is not >> necessary, could be global, I think it's ok either way). I don't think any setup >> which has many upper vlans/macvlans would ever enable this. > >That may be. I don't have a good understanding of scenarios in which >GARP is required and where it's not :) Goes without saying but the >default should follow the more common scenario. At least from the bonding failover persective, the GARP is needed when there's a visible topology change (so peers learn the new path), a change in MAC address, or both. I don't think it's possible to determine from bonding which topology changes are visible, so any failover gets a GARP. The original intent as best I recall was to cover IP addresses configured on the bond itself or on VLANs above the bond. If I understand the original problem description correctly, the bonding failover causes the connectivity issue because the network segments beyond the bond interfaces don't share forwarding information (i.e., they are completely independent). The peer (end station or switch) at the far end of those network segments (where they converge) is unable to directly see that the "to bond eth0" port went down, and has no way to know that anything is awry, and thus won't find the new path until an ARP or forwarding entry for "veth_a2" (from the original diagram) times out at the peer out in the network. >> >> My concern was about the Hangbin's alternative proposal to notify all >> >> bridge ports. I hope in my porposal I was able to avoid infinite loops. >> > >> > Possibly I'm confused as to where the notification for bridge master >> > gets sent.. >> >> IIUC it bypasses the bridge and sends a notify peers for the veth peer so it would >> generate a grat arp (inetdev_event -> NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS). > >Ack, I was basically repeating the question of where does >the notification with dev == br get generated. > >There is a protection in this patch to make sure the other >end of the veth is not plugged into a bridge (i.e. is not >a bridge port) but there can be a macvlan on top of that >veth that is part of a bridge, so IIUC that check is either >insufficient or unnecessary. I'm a bit concerned this is becoming a interface plumbing topology change whack-a-mole. In the above, what if the veth is plugged into a bridge, and there's a end station on that bridge? If it's bridges all the way down, where does the need for some kind of TCN mechanism stop? Or instead of a veth it's an physical network hop (perhaps a tunnel; something through which notifiers do not propagate) to another host with another bridge, then what? -J --- -Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
