| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Currently, all VRFs share the same connection tracking table, which can
lead to problems:
- traffic leaks to a wrong VRF
- improper NAT rules handling when multiple VRFs contain the same IP
networks
- stateful firewall rules issues
The commit implements connection tracking zones support. Each VRF
utilizes its own zone, so connections will never mix up.
It also adds some restrictions to VRF names and assigned table numbers,
because of nftables and conntrack requirements:
- VRF name should always start from a letter (interfaces that start from
numbers are not supported in nftables rules)
- table number must be in the 100-65535 range because conntrack supports
only 65535 zones
|
|
Previously during migration if one had used interface routes, the VRF based
ones got not migrated.
The following "old" VyOS 1.3 configuration did not get migrated:
set protocols static interface-route 10.20.0.0/24 next-hop-interface eth2 next-hop-vrf 'blue'
set protocols static interface-route 10.30.0.0/24 next-hop-interface br10 next-hop-vrf 'red'
set protocols vrf blue static interface-route 10.0.0.0/24 next-hop-interface eth1 next-hop-vrf 'default'
set protocols vrf red static interface-route 10.0.0.0/24 next-hop-interface eth1 next-hop-vrf 'default'
set vrf name blue table '3000'
set vrf name mgmt table '1000'
set vrf name red table '2000'
It must get migrated to:
set protocols static route 10.20.0.0/24 interface eth2 vrf 'blue'
set protocols static route 10.30.0.0/24 interface br10 vrf 'red'
set vrf name blue protocols static route 10.0.0.0/24 interface eth1 vrf 'default'
set vrf name blue table '3000'
set vrf name mgmt table '1000'
set vrf name red protocols static route 10.0.0.0/24 interface eth1 vrf 'default'
set vrf name red table '2000'
|
|
Instead of having the dynamic routing protocols OSPF and BGP residing under
the "protocols vrf <name> [ospf|bgp]" nodes, rather move them directly under
the "vrf name <name> protocols [ospf|bgp]" node. Now all VRF related parts
are placed under the same root node.
This eases the verify steps tremendously, as we do not need to check wheter a
VRF eists or not, it will always exist as we operate under a child node.
|
|
|
