R5.1: Fat flow config with AggDst/AggSrc on SVMIs: Fat flows not getting created when AggDst/AggSrc is configured on left vmi/right vmi

Bug #1807381 reported by Ankit Jain
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Juniper Openstack
Status tracked in Trunk
Trunk
Invalid
High
N Anand Rao

Bug Description

Config:

left vm 52.69.98.3 nodeh7
right vm 214.255.104.3 nodeh3

svm on nodeh7:

52.69.98.4 left vmi with fat flow rule 1:55 - Sip AggrDst 52.69.98.0/24 29
214.255.104.4 right vmi with flow rule 1:55 - Dip AggrSrc 214.255.104.0/24 29

vif0/6 OS: tap4d52d9dd-7c
            Type:Virtual HWaddr:00:00:5e:00:01:00 IPaddr:52.69.98.4
            Vrf:2 Mcast Vrf:2 Flags:PL3L2DEr QOS:-1 Ref:6
            RX packets:853 bytes:74500 errors:0
            TX packets:1582 bytes:127288 errors:0
            ISID: 0 Bmac: 02:4d:52:d9:dd:7c
            Drops:21

            FatFlow rules:
                1:55 - Sip AggrDst 52.69.98.0/24 29

            FatFlows IPv4 exclude prefix list:
                52.69.98.1
                52.69.98.2
                169.254.0.0

            FatFlows IPv6 exclude prefix list:
                fe80::
vif0/7 OS: tap38dbbbe0-70
            Type:Virtual HWaddr:00:00:5e:00:01:00 IPaddr:214.255.104.4
            Vrf:3 Mcast Vrf:3 Flags:PL3L2DEr QOS:-1 Ref:6
            RX packets:1063 bytes:105236 errors:0
            TX packets:1435 bytes:120142 errors:0
            ISID: 0 Bmac: 02:38:db:bb:e0:70
            Drops:366

            FatFlow rules:
                1:55 - Dip AggrSrc 214.255.104.0/24 29

            FatFlows IPv4 exclude prefix list:
                214.255.104.1
                214.255.104.2
                169.254.0.0

            FatFlows IPv6 exclude prefix list:
                fe80::

Observation: No fat flow created
Expectation: Fat flows expected on nodeh7

Logs :
---------------------------------------------------------
Following are the flows created on with SVM compute node:

    Index Source:Port/Destination:Port Proto(V)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    94020<=>151832 214.255.104.3:2495 1 (2->5)
                         52.69.98.3:0
(Gen: 1, K(nh):54, Action:F, Flags:, QOS:-1, S(nh):54, Stats:183/17934,
 SPort 50238, TTL 0, Sinfo 6.0.0.0)

   147152<=>469652 52.69.98.11:2459 1 (3)
                         214.255.104.3:0
(Gen: 1, K(nh):59, Action:F, Flags:, QOS:-1, S(nh):59, Stats:182/17836,
 SPort 50353, TTL 0, Sinfo 7.0.0.0)

   147336<=>238796 52.69.98.11:2459 1 (2->5)
                         214.255.104.3:0
(Gen: 1, K(nh):27, Action:F, Flags:, QOS:-1, S(nh):27, Stats:182/17836,
 SPort 63817, TTL 0, Sinfo 4.0.0.0)

   151832<=>94020 52.69.98.3:2495 1 (2->5)
                         214.255.104.3:0
(Gen: 1, K(nh):28, Action:F, Flags:, QOS:-1, S(nh):28, Stats:183/17934,
 SPort 52381, TTL 0, Sinfo 3.0.0.0)

(Gen: 1, K(nh):54, Action:F, Flags:, QOS:-1, S(nh):54, Stats:182/17836,
 SPort 63871, TTL 0, Sinfo 6.0.0.0)

   245208<=>500328 52.69.98.3:2495 1 (3)
                         214.255.104.3:0
(Gen: 1, K(nh):59, Action:F, Flags:, QOS:-1, S(nh):59, Stats:183/17934,
 SPort 52745, TTL 0, Sinfo 7.0.0.0)

   469652<=>147152 214.255.104.3:2459 1 (3)
                         52.69.98.11:0
(Gen: 2, K(nh):59, Action:F, Flags:, QOS:-1, S(nh):20, Stats:182/15288,
 SPort 55449, TTL 0, Sinfo 7.7.7.3)

   500328<=>245208 214.255.104.3:2495 1 (3)
                         52.69.98.3:0
(Gen: 1, K(nh):59, Action:F, Flags:, QOS:-1, S(nh):20, Stats:183/15372,
 SPort 58142, TTL 0, Sinfo 7.7.7.3)

Ankit Jain (ankitja)
no longer affects: juniperopenstack/r5.0
Changed in juniperopenstack:
assignee: nobody → N Anand Rao (anandrao79)
Revision history for this message
N Anand Rao (anandrao79) wrote :

Debugged with Ankit and found that the issue was due to configuring port 55 for ICMP which is not allowed. Once the port 0 was configured it started working fine. There is also a UI issue which allows configuring arbitrary port numbers for ICMP. The UI issue bug will be filed separately with UI team.

Revision history for this message
Ankit Jain (ankitja) wrote :
Download full text (7.1 KiB)

Please use the following steps to reproduce the bugs:

Config:

left vm Config:

left vm 107.55.29.3
 nodeh7
right vm 54.227.80.3 nodeh3

svm on nodeh7:

107.55.29.4 left vmi with fat flow rule 1:55 - 17:55 - Sip AggrDst 107.55.29.0/24 29
54.227.80.4 right vmi with flow rule 1:55 - 17:55 - Dip AggrSrc 54.227.80.0/24 29

vif0/6 OS: tap3f381714-f8
            Type:Virtual HWaddr:00:00:5e:00:01:00 IPaddr:107.55.29.4
            Vrf:2 Mcast Vrf:2 Flags:PL3L2DEr QOS:-1 Ref:6
            RX packets:80 bytes:5890 errors:0
            TX packets:230 bytes:13868 errors:0
            ISID: 0 Bmac: 02:3f:38:17:14:f8
            Drops:21

            FatFlow rules:
                17:55 - Sip AggrDst 107.55.29.0/24 29

            FatFlows IPv4 exclude prefix list:
                107.55.29.1
                107.55.29.2
                169.254.0.0

            FatFlows IPv6 exclude prefix list:
                fe80::

vif0/7 OS: tapc81b2a88-7e
            Type:Virtual HWaddr:00:00:5e:00:01:00 IPaddr:54.227.80.4
            Vrf:3 Mcast Vrf:3 Flags:PL3L2DEr QOS:-1 Ref:6
            RX packets:93 bytes:7350 errors:0
            TX packets:218 bytes:12372 errors:0
            ISID: 0 Bmac: 02:c8:1b:2a:88:7e
            Drops:48

            FatFlow rules:
                17:55 - Dip AggrSrc 54.227.80.0/24 29

            FatFlows IPv4 exclude prefix list:
                54.227.80.1
                54.227.80.2
                169.254.0.0

            FatFlows IPv6 exclude prefix list:
                fe80::

Observation: No fat flow created
Expectation: Fat flows expected on nodeh7

Logs :
---------------------------------------------------------
Following are the flows created on with SVM compute node:

    Index Source:Port/Destination:Port Proto(V)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    94020<=>151832 214.255.104.3:2495 1 (2->5)
                         52.69.98.3:0
(Gen: 1, K(nh):54, Action:F, Flags:, QOS:-1, S(nh):54, Stats:183/17934,
 SPort 50238, TTL 0, Sinfo 6.0.0.0)

   147152<=>469652 52.69.98.11:2459 1 (3)
                         214.255.104.3:0
(Gen: 1, K(nh):59, Action:F, Flags:, QOS:-1, S(nh):59, Stats:182/17836,
 SPort 50353, TTL 0, Sinfo 7.0.0.0)

   147336<=>238796 52.69.98.11:2459 1 (2->5)
                         214.255.104.3:0
(Gen: 1, K(nh):27, Action:F, Flags:, QOS:-1, S(nh):27, Stats:182/17836,
 SPort 63817, TTL 0, Sinfo 4.0.0.0)

   151832<=>94020 52.69.98.3:2495 1 (2->5)
                         214.255.104.3:0
(Gen: 1, K(nh):28, Action:F, Flags:, QOS:-1, S(nh):28, Stats:183/17934,
 SPort 52381, TTL 0, Sinfo 3.0.0.0)

(Gen: 1, K(nh):54, Action:F, Flags:, QOS:-1, S(nh):54, Stats:182/17836,
 SPort 63871, TTL 0, Sinfo 6.0.0.0)

   245208<=>500328 52.69.98.3:2495 1 (3)
                         214.255.104.3:0
(Gen: 1, K(nh):59, Action:F, Flags:, QOS:-1, S(nh):59, Stats:183/17934,
 SPort 52745, TTL 0, Sinfo 7.0.0.0)

   469652<=>147152 214.255.104.3:2459 1 (3)
                         52.69.98.11:0
(Gen: 2, K(nh):59, Action:F, Flags:, QOS:-1, S(nh):20, Stats:182/15288,
 SPort 55449, TTL 0, Sinfo 7.7.7.3)

   500328<=>245208 214.255.104.3:2495 1 (3)
                     ...

Read more...

Revision history for this message
N Anand Rao (anandrao79) wrote :

Hi Ankit,
Can you please open a new bug instead?

Thanks,
Anand

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.