[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DISCUSS] Why we MARK packets?


Nevermind, found the use of custom routing tables. In case someone want to refer, hints are here:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2514#issuecomment-382510915


Jayapal and others - I've another one, is there a way to do routing without marking packets at all, even in case of VRs with additional public interfaces?


- Rohit

<https://cloudstack.apache.org>



________________________________
From: Rohit Yadav <rohit.yadav@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 10:39:02 PM
To: dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [DISCUSS] Why we MARK packets?

All,


I could not find any history around 'why' we MARK or CONNMARK packets in mangle table in VRs? I found an issue in case of VPCs where `MARK` iptable rules failed hair-pin nat (as described in this PR: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2514)


The valid usage I found was wrt VPN_STATS, however, the usage is not exported at all, it is commented:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/master/systemvm/debian/opt/cloud/bin/vpc_netusage.sh#L141


Other than for debugging purposes in the VR, marking packets and connections I could not find any valid use. Please do share if you're using marked packets (such as VPN ones etc) outside of VR scope?


I propose we remove MARK on packets which is cpu intensive and slows the traffic (a bit), instead CONNMARK can still be used to mark connections and debug VRs without actually changing the packet marking permanently. Thoughts?


- Rohit

<https://cloudstack.apache.org>



rohit.yadav@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue




rohit.yadav@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue