Le 30 nov. 2021 13:18, Nathanaël Blanchet <blanchet(a)abes.fr&gt; a écrit : Le 30/11/2021 à 12:00, Ales Musil a écrit : On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:16 AM Nathanaël Blanchet <blanchet(a)abes.fr&gt; wrote: Le 30 nov. 2021 10:31, Ales Musil <amusil(a)redhat.com&gt; a écrit : On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 10:08 AM Nathanaël Blanchet <blanchet(a)abes.fr&gt; wrote: Le 30/11/2021 à 07:25, Ales Musil a écrit : On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:47 PM Nathanaël Blanchet <blanchet(a)abes.fr&gt; wrote: Hi all, Hi, I 've finished migration from 4.4.4 to 4.4.9 and I'm facing a strange issue with routing table on my hosts: all IP addressed interfaces (and in particular gluster and migration ones that requiere an IP) are not part of the "254" or "0" usual ip rule. Only network with default route role will be in the default table (254). This has been the case for quite a while. What has changed in 4.4.8 is that now NetworkManager is aware of that, before the routes were managed outside of NM and it might have caused some issues. for instance: [root@fuego ~]# nmcli con sh gluster |grep ipv4.route-table ipv4.route-table: 202179335 [root@fuego ~]# nmcli con sh migration |grep ipv4.route-table ipv4.route-table: 316605387 but ovirtmgmt: [root@fuego ~]# nmcli con sh ovirtmgmt |grep ipv4.route-table ipv4.route-table: 254 (main) and obviously the main route table is empty: [root@ ~]# ip ro default via 10.34.100.65 dev ovirtmgmt proto dhcp metric 425 10.34.100.0/24 dev ovirtmgmt proto kernel scope link src 10.34.100.116 metric 425 Well the main table should contain only the default route gateway. You can take a look at other routes by: ip route show table all Indeed, other routes exists [root@fuego ~]# ip ro sh table all 10.34.101.0/24 dev gluster table 202179335 proto kernel scope link src 10.34.101.140 metric 426 10.34.106.0/23 dev admin table 100729354 proto kernel scope link src 10.34.106.72 metric 425 10.34.108.0/23 dev migration table 316605387 proto kernel scope link src 10.34.108.56 metric 427 but don't seem to be used by kernel like they should be by the main table. None of the concerned hosts can ping each other on such interface, and live migrations systematically fail. That might be a different issue related to BZ#2022354 <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2022354>;. To check if that's really the case please take a look into oVirt engine and there you should see all affected networks out-of-sync. On the BZ there are two possible workarounds. Not seems to be that BZ because there is no out of sync network in my case, but the issue could be from the same root cause, because of NM routing table integration. This behaviour is new with 4.4.9 and I don't know if it is a new (and not achevied) network feature introduced with centos stream to deal network filtering packets. A simple workaround would be "nmcli connection mod migration ipv4.route-table 0 && nmcli con up migration", but I'd like to understand why such strange (and unuseful ?) rule table are now randomly attributed? I would highly suggest against that because the default route in the default table should be only one, with exception to some backup scenarios. Notice that this command doesn't add additionnal default route in addition to the main one, but only source route of the defined networks that allow hosts to be reachabled on that networks. [root@fuego ~]# ip ro default via 10.34.100.65 dev ovirtmgmt proto dhcp metric 425 10.34.100.0/24 dev ovirtmgmt proto kernel scope link src 10.34.100.116 metric 425 10.34.106.0/23 dev admin proto kernel scope link src 10.34.107.76 metric 450 10.34.108.0/23 dev migration proto kernel scope link src 10.34.108.121 metric 465 This behaviour is the same as before 4.4.8 and let the live migration to be effective because kernel is now aware to route the network to the correct bridge/interface. To my mind, you can easily reproduce the bug because it is the same on my 10 hosts. Thanks for your help. If I understand it right your networks do not have any gateway (except the default route role) associated with them right? So you are essentially missing the network routes to be in the main table. In that case you can workaround it by setting the table to main as you did or copy the routes. But even better option would be to add gateway to those networks so it can properly create route rules which will then tell the kernel where to route packets that are going from those networks. Okay when defining static IPs but in my case with DHCP, there is no pushed gw for those networks(I could add then for each network into dchp conf but this is not what I want) This was working before because the NM was not aware that we have some routes in different tables and created network routes in the default table. Now the question is if it is a bug as this was more unintentional before. If you feel like this should be working the same way please open a bug and we can discuss it there. Overall it is a bug because live migration fails and it is a regression!!! Nevermind how the network is dealt by NM if everything works as expected. Actually this is related to a different issue with dynamic source routing, that was fixed in 4.5, you are also missing the route rules. E.g. for the migration network. 3200: from 10.34.108.0/23 lookup 316605387 3200: from all to 10.34.108.0/23 lookup 316605387 By adding them the network should work again: ip rule add from 10.34.108.0/23 lookup 316605387 priority 3200 ip rule add from all to 10.34.108.0/23 lookup 316605387 priority 3200 Indeed it works now. So you mean it is a known and corrected bug in future 4.5 or 4.4.5 relased? Can you give me the BZ, I didn't find it. Will the fix be incorporated in a 4.4.x release? It will be fixed only in 4.5 most likely.

After some more tests, I realized that setting static IP instead of dynamic creates an entry in the 0 IP rule, while you said that ip route should only display ovirtmgmt and its default gw. So I guess there is a non logical rule with setting the IP rule depending on static or dynamic addressing.

Thanks, Ales -- Nathanaël Blanchet Supervision réseau SIRE 227 avenue Professeur-Jean-Louis-Viala 34193 MONTPELLIER CEDEX 5 Tél. 33 (0)4 67 54 84 55 Fax 33 (0)4 67 54 84 14 blanchet(a)abes.fr _______________________________________________ Users mailing list -- users(a)ovirt.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)ovirt.org Privacy Statement: https://www.ovirt.org/privacy-policy.html oVirt Code of Conduct: https://www.ovirt.org/community/about/community-guidelines/ List Archives: https://lists.ovirt.org/archives/list/users@ovirt.org/message/QQR2XW7EYWG... Let us know if it's the mentioned bug, if not we can investigate deeper what might be wrong. Thank you. Best Regards, Ales -- Ales Musil Software Engineer - RHV Network Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com> amusil(a)redhat.com IM: amusil <https://red.ht/sig> -- Nathanaël Blanchet Supervision réseau SIRE 227 avenue Professeur-Jean-Louis-Viala 34193 MONTPELLIER CEDEX 5 Tél. 33 (0)4 67 54 84 55 Fax 33 (0)4 67 54 84 14blanchet(a)abes.fr -- Ales Musil Software Engineer - RHV Network Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com> amusil(a)redhat.com IM: amusil <https://red.ht/sig> -- Ales Musil Software Engineer - RHV Network Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com> amusil(a)redhat.com IM: amusil <https://red.ht/sig> -- Nathanaël Blanchet Supervision réseau SIRE 227 avenue Professeur-Jean-Louis-Viala 34193 MONTPELLIER CEDEX 5 Tél. 33 (0)4 67 54 84 55 Fax 33 (0)4 67 54 84 14blanchet(a)abes.fr