[ovs-dev] [PATCH] FAQ: Explain why allowing only unicast traffic breaks IP connectivity.

[Ben Pfaff]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:16:15PM +0000, Pritesh Kothari (pritkoth) wrote:
> 
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 01:28:33PM -0700, Justin Pettit wrote:
> >> Thanks for writing this up.  I think the example may be clearer if
> >> you defined the flow in terms of IP addresses instead of MAC
> >> addresses, since those are typically the flows that are tripping
> >> people up.
> > 
> > OK, I buy that.
> 
> How about keeping both variants? I mean the mac address example is also good
> for some non ip stuff and could help in some cases.

Sure.  How about this, then.

--8<--------------------------cut here-------------------------->8--

From: Ben Pfaff <blp at nicira.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:56:21 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] FAQ: Explain why allowing only IP traffic breaks IP
 connectivity.

Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <blp at nicira.com>
---
 FAQ |   35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+)

diff --git a/FAQ b/FAQ
index 5744d5a..ae053ae 100644
--- a/FAQ
+++ b/FAQ
@@ -1299,6 +1299,41 @@ A: Yes, OpenFlow requires a switch to ignore attempts to send a packet
                                        2,3,4,5,6,\
                                        pop:NXM_OF_IN_PORT[]
 
+Q: My bridge br0 has host 192.168.0.1 on port 1 and host 192.168.0.2
+   on port 2.  I set up flows to forward only traffic destined to the
+   other host and drop other traffic, like this:
+
+      priority=5,in_port=1,ip,nw_dst=192.168.0.2,actions=2
+      priority=5,in_port=2,ip,nw_dst=192.168.0.1,actions=1
+      priority=0,actions=drop
+
+   But it doesn't work--I don't get any connectivity when I do this.
+   Why?
+
+A: These flows drop the ARP packets that IP hosts use to establish IP
+   connectivity over Ethernet.  To solve the problem, add flows to
+   allow ARP to pass between the hosts:
+
+      priority=5,in_port=1,arp,actions=2
+      priority=5,in_port=2,arp,actions=1
+
+   This issue can manifest other ways, too.  The following flows that
+   match on Ethernet addresses instead of IP addresses will also drop
+   ARP packets, because ARP requests are broadcast instead of being
+   directed to a specific host:
+
+      priority=5,in_port=1,dl_dst=54:00:00:00:00:02,actions=2
+      priority=5,in_port=2,dl_dst=54:00:00:00:00:01,actions=1
+      priority=0,actions=drop
+
+   The solution already described above will also work in this case.
+   It may be better to add flows to allow all multicast and broadcast
+   traffic:
+
+      priority=5,in_port=1,dl_dst=01:00:00:00:00:00/01:00:00:00:00:00,actions=2
+      priority=5,in_port=2,dl_dst=01:00:00:00:00:00/01:00:00:00:00:00,actions=1
+
+   This 
 
 Contact 
 -------
-- 
1.7.10.4