-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 774
Simplify IPv6 Gateway Calculation #2703
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Oops, something went wrong.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm curious: Was this sufficient and necessary, during your testing?
If I remember my AWS-internal discussion with the VPC folks leading up to this FE80:EC2::1 launch, the idea was that the gateway would respond to these additional addresses, but still use the original SLAAC address for traffic initiated from the gateway (eg router advertisements). This was an important detail, to avoid changing any user-visible behaviour.
I'm not sure what "can resolve their gateway" includes exactly. I think what you've done in this PR is break router-initiated RAs, but (continue to) allow explicit host-initiated NDs. If so, I think one of the following is true:
If it's this third case, I think we should remove this
createIPv6GatewayRule()
function entirely.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, this rule is required. The way that the route tables are setup for SGPP (same for IPv6 as is for IPv4), Neighbor Discovery initiated by the host needs this carve-out in order to receive the NA to its NS. We disable RA (
accept_ra=0
) on the VLAN interfaces and pod veth pair, so we need ND to succeed.As for the address itself, I do see NA coming from the gateway using
fe80:ec2::1
. It may be safer to include the other variants, though.