"Network Connectivity for Clones" guide doesn't result in connectivity from the clone working

[kanpov]

I followed the guide and got ssh to 192.168.0.3 from default netns to work, but pinging 1.1.1.1 from the guest fails.

ip a on default netns:

...
91: veth1@if4: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP group default qlen 1000
    link/ether de:30:77:dd:fc:c8 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff link-netns fcnet
    inet 10.0.0.1/24 brd 10.0.0.255 scope global veth1
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    inet6 fe80::dc30:77ff:fedd:fcc8/64 scope link proto kernel_ll 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever

ip r on default netns:

...
192.168.0.3 via 10.0.0.2 dev veth1

ip a in vm netns:

1: lo: <LOOPBACK> mtu 65536 qdisc noop state DOWN group default qlen 1000
    link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
2: tap0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP group default qlen 1000
    link/ether 22:ae:d0:45:a0:55 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    inet 172.16.0.1/24 brd 172.16.0.255 scope global tap0
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    inet6 fe80::20ae:d0ff:fe45:a055/64 scope link proto kernel_ll 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
4: veth2@if91: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP group default qlen 1000
    link/ether ca:3c:cc:57:3a:69 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff link-netnsid 0
    inet 10.0.0.2/24 brd 10.0.0.255 scope global veth2
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    inet6 fe80::c83c:ccff:fe57:3a69/64 scope link proto kernel_ll 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever

ip r in vm netns:

default via 10.0.0.1 dev veth2 proto static 
10.0.0.0/24 dev veth2 proto kernel scope link src 10.0.0.2 
172.16.0.0/24 dev tap0 proto kernel scope link src 172.16.0.1

iptables -t nat -vnL in vm netns:

Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 17 packets, 2006 bytes)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         
    2   120 DNAT       0    --  veth2  *       0.0.0.0/0            192.168.0.3          to:172.16.0.2

Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 2 packets, 168 bytes)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         

Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         

Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 2 packets, 120 bytes)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         
    1    84 SNAT       0    --  *      veth2   172.16.0.2           0.0.0.0/0            to:192.168.0.3

Using default ubuntu-22.04.ext4 rootfs with its guest mac setup and ip r a default via 172.16.0.1 in the guest.

I think there might be an error in the guide since connecting to the guest makes sense (192.168.0.3 through to tap through to guest), but how would NATing the packets to 192.168.0.3 result in them going to my actual network interface (wlp1s0)? There aren't any routes or iptables rules being set up in the guide that would point 192.168.0.3 at the correct network interface, or am I missing something?

[kanpov]

I made my own setup like this:

Netns with veth end outside and vpeer end inside, and connectivity on both ends :

iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s ${VPEER_ADDR}/24 -o ${IFACE} -j MASQUERADE
iptables -A FORWARD -i ${IFACE} -o ${VETH} -j ACCEPT
iptables -A FORWARD -o ${IFACE} -i ${VETH} -j ACCEPT

And forwarding from tap to vpeer according to network setup guide with iptables inside the netns.

While this works, it requires 6 iptables rules (7, if also making a clone address with DNAT accessible from outside the netns) and can probably somehow be simplified. Plus, why does the original guide not work like I described?

[kanpov]

After some more networking pain I reduced the amount of necessary rules from 7 to 5 so I'm actually gonna stick with my solution instead of the broken one in the docs:

[src/main.rs:147:5] &iptables_cmd = "-t nat -A POSTROUTING -o veth0 -s 172.16.0.2 -j SNAT --to 10.0.0.2"
[src/main.rs:147:5] &iptables_cmd = "-t nat -A PREROUTING -i veth0 -d 192.168.0.3 -j DNAT --to 172.16.0.2"
[src/main.rs:147:5] &iptables_cmd = "-t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 10.0.0.2/24 -o wlp1s0 -j MASQUERADE"
[src/main.rs:147:5] &iptables_cmd = "-A FORWARD -i wlp1s0 -o veth1 -j ACCEPT"
[src/main.rs:147:5] &iptables_cmd = "-A FORWARD -o wlp1s0 -i veth1 -j ACCEPT"

1 (inside netns) - mark connections from guest as connections from inside netns
2 (inside netns) - mark connections to forwarded guest ip as connections inside netns to the actual guest ip
3-5 (outside netns) - proper internet connectivity inside the netns allowing 1 and 2 to work

[pb8o]

Hi @kanpov it may be the host configuration was not fully captured back when this guide was written. As you said we could update it to use MASQUERADE, but that would invalidate the results below unless we repeat them. we will look into it but I am initially more inclined to just point to the working example we have in our integration tests.

[kanpov]

Hi @kanpov it may be the host configuration was not fully captured back when this guide was written. As you said we could update it to use MASQUERADE, but that would invalidate the results below unless we repeat them. we will look into it but I am initially more inclined to just point to the working example we have in our integration tests.

Funnily enough, the working example you link doesn't use a single SNAT or DNAT rule and does forwarding similarly to what I pointed out instead, so even it isn't what's described on that documentation page. So I think I'm correct in assuming that the configuration presented in the docs is not functional, and yet (as you said) fixing the documentation page would require rerunning the tests which I can't do.

[kanpov]

This is completely the double-forward (from tap to vpeer, and from vpeer to host iface) setup I described in my comment where I used 6/7 (7 with guest IP forwarding) rules. So if the tests were run using it, it's actually possible that this latest setup I showed with 1 forwarding chain and 2 NAT rules inside the netns is faster than the one currently being used by CI (2 forwarding chains).

[pb8o]

Hi, I actually tried the guide myself and I run into the same issues, it is not functional. I thought it could be fixed with iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT but no I cannot make it work with this guide.

@kanpov what is the rule you call 7 with guest IP forwarding is that so we can make the guest routable from the host? Could you share it?

[kanpov]

The last rule is DNAT inside the netns to rewrite the globally-routable IP to the one representing the guest inside the netns.

[kanpov]

For the full code, you can check out the fcnet crate I made that implements both simple and netns networking. For netns, it uses 1 forwarding chain and 2 rewrites instead of 2 forwarding chains like in CI

[pb8o]

I guess that is https://github.com/kanpov/fcnet/blob/master/src/netns.rs? Thanks, I will take a look at it.

[pb8o]

Provided an updated guide in #4848. I think that at least works with what we have in the integration tests even if it's not optimal. Also removed the performance section since we don't have a way of rerunning those tests.

[kanpov]

Provided an updated guide in #4848. I think that at least works with what we have in the integration tests even if it's not optimal. Also removed the performance section since we don't have a way of rerunning those tests.

Thanks for the effort! As for the optimal claim, I don't actually have concrete benchmarks that would prove that FORWARD,MASQUERADE + DNAT for connectivity to the guest and SNAT + FORWARD,MASQUERADE for connectivity from the guest are faster than FORWARD,MASQUERADE + FORWARD,MASQUERADE on both, I made that assumption based on the reduction in iptables rules. So I suppose it'd be interesting to actually make that benchmark, but doing it "properly" in the context of Firecracker would entail recovering those tests or creating new ones.