[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Change proxy_arp to respond only for valid neighbours

To: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Change proxy_arp to respond only for valid neighbours
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 11 Feb 2004 08:11:51 -0500
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402110349260.1325@u.domain.uli>
Organization: jamalopolis
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402082234110.6268@u.domain.uli> <1076338874.1026.36.camel@jzny.localdomain> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402100008580.1251@u.domain.uli> <1076367038.1037.15.camel@jzny.localdomain> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402100114020.1251@u.domain.uli> <1076376094.1039.102.camel@jzny.localdomain> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402101028400.1158@u.domain.uli> <1076410090.1039.578.camel@jzny.localdomain> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402110349260.1325@u.domain.uli>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 20:52, Julian Anastasov wrote: 
>       Hello,
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, jamal wrote:
> > I believe it would work even if there is no neighbor resolved yet.
> > i.e it depends only on a route being resolvable not necessarily
> > having the next hop existing already in arp cache. Try get on some host
>       Yes, I tried it on empty system, just ip route get -> NUD_NONE.

It doesnt seem to show up at all in the neigh cache display although
you are correct that it does go to NUD_NONE given the transition
when you attempt a ping right after. 

is NUD_NONE never displayed by ip n ls?

> > that doesnt exist in cache yet - try on some fake address on a directly
> > connected subnet (make sure you pick a host that doesnt exist and
> > therefore will never be reached).
>       I did it during my initial tests and now I tested it
> again, looks as expected.

I am not %100 sure if such an entry should be route cached if the nh
is not resolvable. What are your thoughts on this?

> > >   Yes, requestor can be in PROBE state sending unicasts
> > > but for us the target can be already unreachable.
> >
> > This is true; what i am saying is for this to happen more than likely
> > something odd must have happened ex: the cable towards the target may
> > have been pulled.i.e the chances of this happening just because the
> > arp cache expired are low. The arp cache would exist because the
> > initial states would have created it.
>       Yes, target can exist in the cache in NUD_FAILED without
> timer. But it is possible if we send probe to receive answer.

NUD_FAILED is dead meat waiting to be garbage collected.

> So, before calling neigh_event_send we can see that the target entry
> is in one of these states:
> a) NUD_NONE - just created, nobody uses it, will go to NUD_INCOMPLETE
>       with timer on neigh_event_send
> b) NUD_INCOMPLETE - we are probing it with broadcasts, timer is running,
>       will continue with the probes
> c) NUD_FAILED - no timer pending, will go to NUD_INCOMPLETE to refresh
>       the state
> d) NUD_VALID - stale/probed/delayed/reachable (probably start delay+probe
> process). STALE looks like valid state but can be outdated - the
> routing cache can keep it for minutes. We can only hope that the
> user has all timeouts configured properly and this period is short.
>       So, if the entry is not valid we can check if ->probes
> ensures at least "2 brd probes sent" (probes >= ucast_probes+2).
> This means "we have no answer for the 1st probe" and allows us
> to stop queueing requests. So, we need to queue requests
> only if probes < ucast_probes+2 (cases a, c and sometimes b).
> Of course, if the entry is valid we will queue the brd requests.
> Do you like such checks instead of adding new flag? Or the wishes
> are already too many to continue with this patch?

I think if any cache entry is NUD_VALID you should respond immediately.
anything else you should enqueue request and initiate a discovery to

>       If you prefer you can take the 20 lines of code from
> and to write
> a pseudo-C example how you feel the handling should be.

Ok, I looked at this and i am wondering if all logic you have is needed.
I apologize in advance because i feel i missed something you said
earlier, but what is wrong with just saying along the following lines:

 if (skb->stamp.tv_sec == 0 ||
    skb->pkt_type == PACKET_HOST ||
    in_dev->arp_parms->proxy_delay == 0) {
         if ((in_dev->arp_parms->proxy_validate) &&
              n && !neigh_is_valid(n)) {
                              /* probably issue arp to tip here */
                              goto q_it;                           
 } else {
         if (fwd_proxy)
              neigh_event_send(n, NULL);
         pneigh_enqueue(&arp_tbl, in_dev->arp_parms, skb);
         return 0;
 goto out;


Let me cut your email in two here because it is getting too long


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>