Bug 1437568 - Egress routing doesn't work Vmware platform if promiscuous mode setting is not enabled in dvswitch
Summary: Egress routing doesn't work Vmware platform if promiscuous mode setting is no...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DEFERRED
Alias: None
Product: OpenShift Container Platform
Classification: Red Hat
Component: RFE
Version: 3.4.0
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
: 4.3.0
Assignee: Ben Bennett
QA Contact: Xiaoli Tian
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 1570092 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-03-30 14:44 UTC by Nicolas Nosenzo
Modified: 2021-03-11 15:06 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-04-18 21:22:16 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Nicolas Nosenzo 2017-03-30 14:44:01 UTC
Description of problem:

After enabled "MAC Address Changes" and "Forged Transmissions" on the dvSwitch as per stated on documentation [0] , Egress pod doesn't if promiscuous mode is disabled.

[0] https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/3.4/admin_guide/managing_pods.html#admin-guide-limit-pod-access-important-deployment-considerations

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

Environment:
Openshift 3.4
VMware



How reproducible:
100%

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Enable "MAC Address Changes" and "Forged Transmissions"
2. Deploy an egress router pod:

[root@bf-ocp-master2 ~]# cat egresstest.yaml
apiVersion: v1
kind: Pod
metadata:
  name: egress-1
  labels:
    name: egress-1
  annotations:
    pod.network.openshift.io/assign-macvlan: "true"
spec:
  containers:
  - name: egress-router
    image: openshift3/ose-egress-router
    securityContext:
      privileged: true
    env:
    - name: EGRESS_SOURCE 
      value: 10.23.155.13
    - name: EGRESS_GATEWAY 
      value: 10.23.155.1 
    - name: EGRESS_DESTINATION 
      value: 195.225.7.67 
  nodeSelector:
    type: node

[root@bf-ocp-master2 ~]#


3. "oc rsh" within the pod, try to ping the $EGRESS_DESTINATION, got "Destination Host Unreachable" message:

[root@bf-ocp-master2 ~]# oc rsh egress-1 
sh-4.2# ping 195.225.7.67
PING 195.225.7.67 (195.225.7.67) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 10.23.155.13 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
From 10.23.155.13 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable
From 10.23.155.13 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable
From 10.23.155.13 icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable

sh-4.2# ip n
10.23.155.1 dev macvlan0  FAILED

[root@bf-ocp-node3 ~]#


Actual results:
$EGRESS_DESTINATION is not reachable inside the pods

Expected results:
EGRESS_DESTINATION should "pingable" from egress router pod

Additional info:
As per [1]: vSwitches do not "learn" MAC addresses. To make this work,  promiscuous mode on the vSwitch might need to be enabled.

[1] https://communities.vmware.com/thread/320523?start=0&tstart=0

Comment 2 Nicolas Nosenzo 2017-04-03 07:59:42 UTC
Some concerns within the original case, 

Can we expect an IPVLAN solution for egress routing in Openshift? If not, is there any other way of doing this without using MacVLAN or IPVLAN?

Comment 3 Dan Winship 2017-04-04 20:19:21 UTC
(In reply to Nicolas Nosenzo from comment #2)
> Some concerns within the original case, 
> 
> Can we expect an IPVLAN solution for egress routing in Openshift? If not, is
> there any other way of doing this without using MacVLAN or IPVLAN?

There is currently no way to do this without using MacVLAN, and no plan to implement any other way. It would be possible to implement a solution using either ipvlan or a second NIC. So, moving this from "Networking" to "RFE".

Comment 5 Eric Rich 2018-03-12 13:54:36 UTC
This bug has been identified as a dated (created more than 3 months ago) bug. 
This bug has been triaged (has a trello card linked to it), or reviewed by Engineering/PM and has been put into the product backlog, 
however this bug has not been slated for a currently planned release (3.9, 3.10 or 3.11), which cover our releases for the rest of the calendar year. 

As a result of this bugs age, state on the current roadmap and PM Score (being below 70), this bug is being Closed - Differed, 
as it is currently not part of the products immediate priorities.

Please see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zdqF4rB3ea8GmVIZ7qWCVYUaQ7-EexUrQEF0MTwdDkw/edit for more details.

Comment 7 Sanket N 2018-12-03 12:56:14 UTC
*** Bug 1570092 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.