Uploaded image for project: 'OpenShift Bugs'
  1. OpenShift Bugs
  2. OCPBUGS-17637

[Multi-NIC] EgressIP assignment behavior on secondary NIC is different from primary NIC for IPv6

XMLWordPrintable

    • Important
    • No
    • SDN Sprint 244
    • 1
    • Rejected
    • False
    • Hide

      None

      Show
      None

      Description of problem:

      
      
      

      Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

      pre-merge testing 
      
      

      How reproducible:

      Always
      
      

      Steps to Reproduce:

      For Primary Interface, the ipv6 is with 128 prefix as well.
      For node host-addresses annotation, "fd2e:6f44:5dd8:c956::17/128" is with 128 prefix as well.
      Annotations:        k8s.ovn.org/host-addresses:
                            ["192.168.111.23/24","192.168.111.4/32","fd00:1101::cf40:f9ad:7679:e00a/128","fd2e:6f44:5dd8:c956::17/128","fd2e:6f44:5dd8:c956::4/128"]
      
      But for k8s.ovn.org/node-primary-ifaddr, we can see the prefix is 120
      # oc describe node worker-0.sriov.openshift-qe.sdn.com | grep primary
                          k8s.ovn.org/node-primary-ifaddr: {"ipv4":"192.168.111.23/24","ipv6":"fd2e:6f44:5dd8:c956::17/120"}
      
      sh-4.4# ip a show br-ex
      6: br-ex: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1000
          link/ether 00:32:ca:4e:a8:b9 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
          inet 192.168.111.23/24 brd 192.168.111.255 scope global dynamic noprefixroute br-ex
             valid_lft 2559sec preferred_lft 2559sec
          inet 169.254.169.2/29 brd 169.254.169.7 scope global br-ex
             valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
          inet 192.168.111.4/32 scope global br-ex:vip
             valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
          inet6 fd2e:6f44:5dd8:c956::4/128 scope global nodad deprecated 
             valid_lft forever preferred_lft 0sec
          inet6 fd69::2/125 scope global nodad 
             valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
          inet6 fd2e:6f44:5dd8:c956::17/128 scope global dynamic noprefixroute 
             valid_lft 2414sec preferred_lft 2414sec
          inet6 fe80::232:caff:fe4e:a8b9/64 scope link noprefixroute 
             valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
      
      For primary interface, egressIP can be assigned to egress node
      oc get egressip
      NAME         EGRESSIPS                 ASSIGNED NODE                         ASSIGNED EGRESSIPS
      egressip-1   fd2e:6f44:5dd8:c956::20   worker-0.sriov.openshift-qe.sdn.com   fd2e:6f44:5dd8:c956::20
      
      However, egressIP can NOT be assigned to egress node for secondary interface
      oc get egressip
      NAME         EGRESSIPS                        ASSIGNED NODE   ASSIGNED EGRESSIPS
      egressip-1   fd00:1101::cf40:f9ad:7679:e00b                   
      # oc get event | grep egressip
      79s         Warning   NoMatchingNodeFound                          egressip/egressip-1                        No matching nodes found, which can host any of the egress IPs: [fd00:1101::cf40:f9ad:7679:e00b] for object EgressIP: egressip-1
      
      2: enp1s0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc fq_codel state UP group default qlen 1000
          link/ether 00:32:ca:4e:a8:b7 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
          inet6 fd00:1101::cf40:f9ad:7679:e00a/128 scope global dynamic noprefixroute 
             valid_lft 80792sec preferred_lft 80792sec
          inet6 fe80::232:caff:fe4e:a8b7/64 scope link noprefixroute 
             valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
      
      

      Actual results:

      In a conclusion, both primary interface and secondary interface get the IPv6 address from dhcpv6 and if we use `ip a` to check, both of them have 128 prefix.  But egressIP works for primary interface not secondary interface
      
      

      Expected results:

      EgressIP should work for secondary interface as primary interface for dhcpv6 assigned IP address.
      
      

      Additional info:

      
      

            mkennell@redhat.com Martin Kennelly
            huirwang Huiran Wang
            Huiran Wang Huiran Wang
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            3 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: