-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 38
flags: add 'laminar' endpoints support #326
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
flags: add 'laminar' endpoints support #326
Conversation
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 19644256155Details
💛 - Coveralls |
c7dc293 to
fc6e388
Compare
| # | ||
| # See the ip-mptcp(8) man page for details. | ||
| # | ||
| # addr-flags=subflow |
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 wonder if we should not set subflow,laminar by default. Older kernel versions will accept that.
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 wonder if we should not set
subflow,laminarby default. Older kernel versions will accept that.
(if yes, I'm not so sure how to "cleanly" change the default value :) )
matttbe
left a comment
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.
@ossama-othman thank you for the reviews!
Some new defines related to MPTCP_INFO and EV flags, and switch to _BITUL(). Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <[email protected]>
Currently, upon the reception of an ADD_ADDR (and when the fullmesh flag is not used), the in-kernel PM will create new subflows using the local address the routing configuration will pick. It would be easier to pick local addresses from a selected list of endpoints, and use it only once, than relying on routing rules. Use case: both the client (C) and the server (S) have two addresses (a and b). The client establishes the connection between C(a) and S(a). Once established, the server announces its additional address S(b). Once received, the client connects to it using its second address C(b). Compared to a situation without the 'laminar' endpoint for C(b), the client didn't use this address C(b) to establish a subflow to the server's primary address S(a). So at the end, we have: C S C(a) --- S(a) C(b) --- S(b) In case of a 3rd address on each side (C(c) and S(c)), upon the reception of an ADD_ADDR with S(c), the client should not pick C(b) because it has already been used. C(c) should then be used. Note that this situation is currently possible if C doesn't add any endpoint, but configure the routing in order to pick C(b) for the route to S(b), and pick C(c) for the route to S(c). That doesn't sound very practical because it means knowing in advance the IP addresses that will be used and announced by the server. 'laminar', like the idea of laminar flows: the different subflows don't mix with each other on an endpoint, unlike the "turbulent" way traffic is mixed by 'fullmesh'. This new flag is then added to mptcpd as well. Link: multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next#503 Link: https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/539f6b9de39e Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <[email protected]>
Endpoints are usually added with a flag: validate that. Set a random one (the new 'subflow' one) instead of 0. Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <[email protected]>
This parameter was not validated before. Use all possible flags (even if they are not individually checked). Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <[email protected]>
4a58168 to
68c2614
Compare
|
Thank you for the review! I had to rebase (conflicts in The CI is still happy, I suggest merging then! |
Currently, upon the reception of an
ADD_ADDR(and when thefullmeshflag is not used), the in-kernel PM will create new subflows using the local address the routing configuration will pick.It would be easier to pick local addresses from a selected list of endpoints, and use it only once, than relying on routing rules.
Use case: both the client (C) and the server (S) have two addresses (a and b). The client establishes the connection between C(a) and S(a). Once established, the server announces its additional address S(b). Once received, the client connects to it using its second address C(b). Compared to a situation without the 'laminar' endpoint for C(b), the client didn't use this address C(b) to establish a subflow to the server's primary address S(a). So at the end, we have:
In case of a 3rd address on each side (C(c) and S(c)), upon the reception of an ADD_ADDR with S(c), the client should not pick C(b) because it has already been used. C(c) should then be used.
Note that this situation is currently possible if C doesn't add any endpoint, but configure the routing in order to pick C(b) for the route to S(b), and pick C(c) for the route to S(c). That doesn't sound very practical because it means knowing in advance the IP addresses that will be used and announced by the server.
laminar, like the idea of laminar flows: the different subflows don't mix with each other on an endpoint, unlike the "turbulent" way traffic is mixed byfullmesh.This new flag is then added to mptcpd as well.
Link: multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next#503
Link: https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/539f6b9de39e