Kernel protocol and different namespaces

[Alexander Zubkov]

Yes, different bird processes in each namespace. And if you need to "leak"
routes between them for some reason, then you need to connect them somehow
to pass routes between processes. There are concerns of course if you want
to export those routes into routing table, because of separated interfaces,
but at that point you should already know pretty well what dirty things you
are trying to do. :)

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:15 PM Jakub Nowacki <jnowacki at greywizard.com>
wrote:

> I'm in similar situation. Trying to run Bird on hardware that runs on top
> of kernel that doesn't support vrf.
> Not sure if I understand correctly. Not sure how using Linux sockets would
> allow you to achieve separation between different namespaces? You would
> still need at least different Bird process, right?
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 11:08 PM Alexander Zubkov <green at qrator.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes. Looks like they are accounted in their own network namespace, it
>> is quite reasonable. But they are still can be accessed via the file
>> system from another namespaces. I can confirm that it works too. An
>> example with the bird control socket:
>>
>> localhost:~/run# birdc -s retn/bird.ctl show status
>> BIRD 2.0.4 ready.
>> BIRD 2.0.4
>> Router ID is 87.245.192.0
>> Current server time is 2019-06-07 20:47:32.479
>> Last reboot on 2019-06-07 20:45:17.425
>> Last reconfiguration on 2019-06-07 20:45:17.425
>> Daemon is up and running
>> localhost:~/run# ip netns exec retn birdc -s retn/bird.ctl show status
>> BIRD 2.0.4 ready.
>> BIRD 2.0.4
>> Router ID is 87.245.192.0
>> Current server time is 2019-06-07 20:47:49.452
>> Last reboot on 2019-06-07 20:45:17.425
>> Last reconfiguration on 2019-06-07 20:45:17.425
>> Daemon is up and running
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 10:41 PM Maria Matejka <jan.matejka at nic.cz> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 6/7/19 12:14 PM, Maria Jan Matějka wrote:
>> > >> Thinking once more about it, with respect to the interfaces and so,
>> > >> the BGP transported over Unix socket seems to be quite simple feature
>> > >> to do.
>> > >
>> > > I thought, and my initial tests support, that Unix sockets are network
>> > > namespace specific.
>> > >
>> > > # netstat -aFunix
>> > > Kernel Interface table
>> > > Iface      MTU    RX-OK RX-ERR RX-DRP RX-OVR    TX-OK TX-ERR TX-DRP
>> > > TX-OVR Flg
>> > > eno1      1500 77564888      0    614 0      66111123      0      0 0
>> BMRU
>> > > lo       65536 68143909      0      0 0      68143909      0      0 0
>> LRU
>> > > # ip netns add test
>> > > # ip netns exec test /bin/netstat -aFunix
>> > > Kernel Interface table
>> > > Iface      MTU    RX-OK RX-ERR RX-DRP RX-OVR    TX-OK TX-ERR TX-DRP
>> > > TX-OVR Flg
>> > > lo       65536        0      0      0 0             0      0      0
>> > > 0 L
>> > > # ip netns del test
>> > >
>> > > So, I'm not sure if that's going to work the way that you want.
>> >
>> > It will work the same way as the BIRD control socket works.
>> > You can try it by the attached script (run by root) which uses socat for
>> > demonstration.
>> >
>> > Maria
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Kuba Nowacki
>
> Senior NetOps
>
> M: +(48) 605 508 118
>
> E: jnowacki at greywizard.com
>
>
>
> GreyWizard Sp. z o.o.
>
> ul. Palacza 113
>
> 60-273 Poznań, Poland
>
> NIP: 779-24-22-423
>
> Regon: 302744400
>
> KRS: 0000512326
>
>
> greywizard.com
>
> support at greywizard.com
>
> +48 22 201 33 13
>
> Sąd Rejonowy w Poznaniu, VIII Wydział Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru
> Sądowego. Kapitał zakładowy 10000 PLN.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://trubka.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/attachments/20190612/7776326a/attachment.htm>