On 10/01/2014 09:58 AM, VARUN BHATIA wrote: > Hi, > > They both are on different subnets one is on 10.204 & other o 10.205. > > Kindly let me know what route will be required for this as I am still > stuck in this issue. > If I had to guess, there is some kind of issue in nat/iptables handling.... Any change you try without iptables? -vlad > Thanks, > Varun > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 03:53:13PM +0530, VARUN BHATIA wrote: >>> The mask kept is /16, I placed wrong information correcting it: >>> >>> Host A Host B >>> Primary 10.204.200.200 10.204.100.100 >>> Secondary 10.205.200.200 10.205.100.100 >>> >>> We are having our customized linux. >>> >>> ip neigh list >>> fe80::224:13ff:fe45:ced4 dev eth3 lladdr 00:24:13:45:ce:d4 router STALE >>> fe80::224:13ff:fe45:ced5 dev eth0 lladdr 00:24:13:45:ce:d5 router STALE >>> 10.205.100.100 dev eth3 lladdr 00:0b:ab:55:57:01 REACHABLE >>> >>> I tried for a workaround and played with nat rules: >>> >>> iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING -o eth2 -d 10.204.100.100 -j SNAT -p >>> sctp --to 10.204.200.200 >>> iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING -o eth3 -d 10.205.100.100 -j SNAT -p >>> sctp --to 10.205.200.200 >>> >>> After this it started working though it is not the correct solution, >>> but yet after this it seems due to some conntrack table entries when I >>> receive request from peer end it is not working proparly: >>> >>> 3.484280 10.205.200.200 -> 10.205.100.100 SCTP 98 INIT >>> 3.488652 10.205.100.100 -> 10.205.200.200 SCTP 354 INIT_ACK >>> 3.488706 10.205.200.200 -> 10.205.100.100 SCTP 310 COOKIE_ECHO >>> 3.488923 10.205.100.100 -> 10.205.200.200 SCTP 60 COOKIE_ACK >>> >>> 3.497282 10.205.200.200 -> 10.205.100.100 SCTP 62 SACK >>> >>> 6.512476 10.205.100.100 -> 10.205.200.200 SCTP 98 INIT >>> 6.512575 10.204.200.200 -> 10.205.100.100 SCTP 354 INIT_ACK >>> >>> 21.240776 10.205.100.100 -> 10.205.200.200 SCTP 310 COOKIE_ECHO >>> 21.240866 10.204.200.200 -> 10.205.100.100 SCTP 50 COOKIE_ACK >>> 21.242183 10.205.100.100 -> 10.205.200.200 SCTP 60 SHUTDOWN >>> 21.242237 10.205.200.200 -> 10.205.100.100 SCTP 50 SHUTDOWN_ACK >>> 21.242353 10.205.100.100 -> 10.205.200.200 SCTP 60 SHUTDOWN_COMPLETE >>> >>> When peer end sends INIT my box again send INIT_ACK using primary ip >>> address simlarly for COOKIE_ACK also, but SHUTDOWN ACK it is sending >>> correct. >>> >>> Not sure what I am missing here, kindly provide your inputs on this ? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Varun >>> >> >> This is working as designed. Since both your host addresses are on the same >> subnet, and since ip addresses are owned by the system in linux, not the >> interface, its not really relevant which source address is used. If you want to >> force source ip addresses to be used for the interface you are sending from, >> you'll want to add higher priority routes that specify the src address. >> >> Neil >> > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
