[MidoNet-dev] API proposal - Optional Bridge ARP Cache

Navarro, Galo galo at midokura.com
Mon Feb 25 15:35:56 UTC 2013


Thanks for the feedback, Dave & Ryu. Some comments inline:

> I think Dave is raising a really interesting point here.  Having a cloud
> orchestration do pre-seeding of port/mac/ip creates duplicate data (DHCP,
> ARP, Bridge MAC table).  Even if we leave DHCP as a separate service, are
> there problems to construct both bridge mac table and ARP cache from the
> current port configs in ZK?  A port config already has IP address and MAC
> address fields.  I still think it's worth having a separate ARP cache API
> but only for doing proxy ARP, as Dave mentioned;  The mapping in this table
> set via REST API would simply override the implicit ARP cache created from
> the port ZK configs, and they're always permanent entries.  This idea
> probably has already been discussed and dismissed but I would love to hear
> some explanation from the core team as I am most likely missing something.

Generally I prefer to minimise the likelihood of inconsistencies so I
agree that if we can keep a single place to set MAC-IP mappings would
be highly preferable.

I'd be in favour of pulling ZK port configs to build the cache
because, as Pino mentions in #154, "we may want to make this feature
available regardless of whether DHCP is configured". It's worth noting
that DHCP snooping has the side effect of helping prevent ARP
spoofing, but I'm not sure that this is an important requirement right
now.

In any case, exposing the bridge's ARP caches on read-only mode for
debugging might still be convenient, what do you think?

> At first glance, I think we can support this using static bridge ARP cache
> entries. For example, if IP A is reachable via the router, but we want
> machines on the bridge to believe that IP A is local, we can set a static entry
> of (IP A, router's MAC) on the bridge. Machines on the bridge should then
> send packets for A direct to the router's MAC, and the router should (I think)
> just route the packet to where it needs to go. I think this is what Pino
> describes in Github issue #154 [3].

It would be feasible (adding API methods to update the ARP cache), but
I was talking with Guillermo about this and we can't really see a use
case for this, do you have an example?

>> Physical bridge equivalent
>> How does this ARP caching behavior compare to physical bridges? For
>> example, if I locally (e.g. using ifconfig on the machines) change VM A to
>> take VM B's IP, and VM B to take VM A's IP, I'd imagine a physical bridge
>> would realize that quickly and adapt. If we set ARP entries statically and
>> permanently, could that result in worse behavior (never adapts to the IP
>> address switch)? Or is changing your IP address statically / locally on the
>> VM just a weird case?
>>
>
> It's probably acceptable not to handle this case from the cloud integration
> point of view, as it's the same with EC2, and it hasn't seem to cause
> issues.  Can midolman handle this case without any explicit API calls right
> now?

Bridges don't keep ARP tables right now so they wouldn't notice.
Routers do, they would start dropping packets since the cached IP
wouldn't match with the new one. At some point it the network would
eventually pick up the changes by expiring the old ARP mappings.

Initially bridges should behave similarly since we're talking about
having a single implementation of the ARP cache shared by all devices.

How we update the entries will really depend on your expectations. We can
1. Learn from ZK port config first, upon expiration renew by ARP
snooping or by requering ZK
2. Listen to ZK port config updates
3. Offer an API method to manually trigger invalidates / renewal of
cached entries for a given port / mac / ip
..

What behaviour would you expect? Should the ARP cache react
immediately or is it ok to wait? Will this situation happen
frequently?

Cheers,
/g


More information about the MidoNet-dev mailing list