> On 23. Jun 2020, at 23:31, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner > <marcelo.leit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:24:59PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote: >>> On 23. Jun 2020, at 23:21, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner >>> <marcelo.leit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:17:56AM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 01:17:28PM +0000, David Laight wrote: >>>>> From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner >>>>>> Sent: 22 June 2020 19:33 >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 08:01:24PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote: >>>>>>>> On 22. Jun 2020, at 18:57, Corey Minyard <miny...@acm.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 08:01:23PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 11:56 PM Corey Minyard <miny...@acm.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I've stumbled upon a strange problem with SCTP and IPv6. If I >>>>>>>>>> create an >>>>>>>>>> sctp listening socket on :: and set the IPV6_V6ONLY socket option on >>>>>>>>>> it, >>>>>>>>>> then I make a connection to it using ::1, the connection will drop >>>>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>>>> 2.5 seconds with an ECONNRESET error. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It only happens on SCTP, it doesn't have the issue if you connect to >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> full IPv6 address instead of ::1, and it doesn't happen if you don't >>>>>>>>>> set IPV6_V6ONLY. I have verified current end of tree kernel.org. >>>>>>>>>> I tried on an ARM system and x86_64. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I haven't dug into the kernel to see if I could find anything yet, >>>>>>>>>> but I >>>>>>>>>> thought I would go ahead and report it. I am attaching a reproducer. >>>>>>>>>> Basically, compile the following code: >>>>>>>>> The code only set IPV6_V6ONLY on server side, so the client side will >>>>>>>>> still bind all the local ipv4 addresses (as you didn't call bind() to >>>>>>>>> bind any specific addresses ). Then after the connection is created, >>>>>>>>> the client will send HB on the v4 paths to the server. The server >>>>>>>>> will abort the connection, as it can't support v4. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So you can work around it by either: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - set IPV6_V6ONLY on client side. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - bind to the specific v6 addresses on the client side. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't see RFC said something about this. >>>>>>>>> So it may not be a good idea to change the current behaviour >>>>>>>>> to not establish the connection in this case, which may cause >>>>>>>>> regression. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ok, I understand this. It's a little strange, but I see why it works >>>>>>>> this way. >>>>>>> I don't. I would expect it to work as I described in my email. >>>>>>> Could someone explain me how and why it is behaving different from >>>>>>> my expectation? >>>>>> >>>>>> It looks like a bug to me. Testing with this test app here, I can see >>>>>> the INIT_ACK being sent with a bunch of ipv4 addresses in it and >>>>>> that's unexpected for a v6only socket. As is, it's the server saying >>>>>> "I'm available at these other addresses too, but not." >>>>> >>>>> Does it even make sense to mix IPv4 and IPv6 addresses on the same >>>>> connection? >>>>> I don't remember ever seeing both types of address in a message, >>>>> but may not have looked. >>>> >>>> That's an interesting question. Do the RFCs say anything? I would >>>> assume it was ok unless ipv6only was set. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I also wonder whether the connection should be dropped for an error >>>>> response on a path that has never been validated. >>>> >>>> That actually bothered me a bit more. Shouldn't it stay up if any path >>>> is up? That's kind of the whole point of multihoming. >>> >>> Michael explained it on the other email. What he described is what I >>> observed in my tests. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> OTOH the whole 'multi-homing' part of SCTP sucks. >>>> >>>> I don't think so. >>>> >>>>> The IP addresses a server needs to bind to depend on where the >>>>> incoming connection will come from. >>>>> A local connection may be able to use a 192.168.x.x address >>>>> but a remote connection must not - as it may be defined locally >>>>> at the remote system. >>>>> But both connections can come into the public (routable) address. >>>>> We have to tell customers to explicitly configure the local IP >>>>> addresses - which means the application has to know what they are. >>>>> Fortunately these apps are pretty static - usually M3UA. >>>> >>>> Umm, no, If you have a private address, it better be behind a firewall, >>>> and the firewall should handle rewriting the packet to fix the addresses. >>>> >>>> It doesn't appear that Linux netfilter does this. There is a TODO in >>>> the code for this. But that's how it *should* work. >>> >>> Right, we don't support SCTP aware NAT [1]. >>> >>> 1.https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stewart-behave-sctpnat-04 >> The current version is: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-16 > > Thanks! > >> >> Another possibility for NAT traversal is UDP encapsulation... > > Also not supported.. :-] But maybe someone wants to implement it. It is supported by FreeBSD, if you need a peer for testing. Or the userland stack usrsctp supports it. Then you do not need root privileges to run it.
Best regards Michael > > Best regards, > Marcelo > >> >> Best regards >> Michael >>> >>> Marcelo >>> >>>> >>>> -corey >>>> >>>>> >>>>> David >>>>> >>>>> - >>>>> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 >>>>> 1PT, UK >>>>> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales) >>>>> >>