The FDP team is no longer accepting new bugs in Bugzilla. Please report your issues under FDP project in Jira. Thanks.
Bug 2053013 - Wrong addition of VIPs to all logical router pods leading to triggering GARP on different locations
Summary: Wrong addition of VIPs to all logical router pods leading to triggering GARP ...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 2054394
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux Fast Datapath
Classification: Red Hat
Component: ovn-2021
Version: FDP 21.K
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
high
Target Milestone: ---
: FDP 22.B
Assignee: lorenzo bianconi
QA Contact: Jianlin Shi
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 2064704 2064706 2064709
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2022-02-10 13:03 UTC by Luis Tomas Bolivar
Modified: 2022-03-16 11:55 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version: ovn2.13-20.12.0-195
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
: 2064704 (view as bug list)
Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-03-04 01:36:46 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Issue Tracker FD-1766 0 None None None 2022-02-10 13:08:30 UTC

Description Luis Tomas Bolivar 2022-02-10 13:03:08 UTC
Description of problem:
When a loadbalancer is created in an OSP tenant network (VIP and members), and that tenant networks is connected to a router, which in turns is connected to the provider network, the ovn loadbalancer gets associated to the ovn logical router. This includes also the cr-lrp port (patch port connecting the router and the provider network, in OSP world, the router gateway port), and it can be seen by the entry on the nat_address of that port, which includes the VIP of the loadbalalancer.

This may cause problems as that means ovn-controller will send GARPs for that (internal, tenant network) IP. There is nothing blocking different tenants in OSP to create a subnet with the same CIDR and then a loadbalancer with the same VIP. If that is the case, there may be several ovn-controllers generating GARPs on the provider network for the same IP, each one with the MAC of the logical router port belonging to each user. This could be a problem for the physical network infrastructure.


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create a router in OSP and attach it to the provider network
2. Create a tenant network/subnet and connect it to the router
3. Create a Load Balancer in OSP, with the VIP in  that tenant network

Actual results:
Check the VIP of the loadbalancer is on the OVN SB Port_Binding table, at the nat_addresses of the patch port connecting the router to the provider network:

datapath            : e3a0a334-9a02-41c7-a64d-6ea747839808
external_ids        : {"neutron:cidrs"="172.24.100.181/24 2001:db8::f816:3eff:fe77:7f9c/64", "neutron:device_id"="335cd008-216f-4571-a685-b0de5a7ffe50", "neutron:device_owner"="network:router_gateway", "neutron:network_name"=neutron-d923b3db-500d-4241-95be-c3869c72b36a, "neutron:port_name"="", "neutron:project_id"="", "neutron:revision_number"="6", "neutron:security_group_ids"=""}                                                                                                                            
logical_port        : "add962d2-21ab-4733-b6ef-35538eff25a8"
mac                 : [router]
nat_addresses       : ["fa:16:3e:77:7f:9c 172.24.100.181 is_chassis_resident(\"cr-lrp-add962d2-21ab-4733-b6ef-35538eff25a8\")", "fa:16:3e:77:7f:9c 172.24.100.229 *20.0.0.98* 172.24.100.112 is_chassis_resident(\"cr-lrp-add962d2-21ab-4733-b6ef-35538eff25a8\")"]
options             : {peer=lrp-add962d2-21ab-4733-b6ef-35538eff25a8}
parent_port         : []
tag                 : []
tunnel_key          : 4
type                : patch
up                  : false
virtual_parent      : []


Expected results:
In the example, ip 20.0.0.98 should not be there as that belongs to an IP in a tenant network that should not be advertized (GARP) in the provider network.

Comment 10 Jianlin Shi 2022-03-02 02:12:27 UTC
Hi Mark,

How is this bug solved? with the RFE bz2054394 or any other way?
if it is solved by bz2054394, then we can set this bug as duplicated, how do you think?

Comment 11 Mark Michelson 2022-03-03 13:46:58 UTC
Yes, this is solved by https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2054394, so you can mark this as a duplicate if you would like.

Comment 12 Jianlin Shi 2022-03-04 01:36:46 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2054394 ***


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