I have two subnets and am experiencing some pretty weird (to me) behaviour - could you help me understand what’s going on?
Scenario 1
PC: 192.168.11.101/24
Server: 192.168.10.102/24, 192.168.11.102/24
From my PC I can connect to .11.102, but not to .10.102:
ping -c 10 192.168.11.102 # works fine
ping -c 10 192.168.10.102 # 100% packet loss
Scenario 2
Now, if I disable .11.102 on the server (ip link set <dev> down) so that it only has an ip on the .10 subnet, the previously failing ping works fine.
PC: 192.168.11.101/24
Server: 192.168.10.102/24
From my PC:
ping -c 10 192.168.10.102 # now works fine
This is baffling to me… any idea why it might be?
Here’s some additional information:
-
The two subnets are on different vlans (.10/24 is untagged and .11/24 is tagged 11).
-
The PC and Server are connected to the same managed switch, which however does nothing “strange” (it just leaves tags as they are on all ports).
-
The router is connected to the aformentioned switch and set to forward packets between the two subnets (I’m pretty sure how I’ve configured it so, plus IIUC the second scenario ping wouldn’t work without forwarding).
-
The router also has the same vlan setup, and I can ping both .10.1 and .11.1 with no issue in both scenarios 1 and 2.
-
In case it may matter, machine 1 has the following routes, setup by networkmanager from dhcp:
default via 192.168.11.1 dev eth1 proto dhcp src 192.168.11.101 metric 410
192.168.11.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.11.101 metric 410
- In case it may matter, Machine 2 uses systemd-networkd and the routes generated from DHCP are slightly different (after dropping the .11.102 address for scenario 2, of course the relevant routes disappear):
default via 192.168.10.1 dev eth0 proto dhcp src 192.168.10.102 metric 100
192.168.10.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.10.102 metric 100
192.168.10.1 dev eth0 proto dhcp scope link src 192.168.10.102 metric 100
default via 192.168.11.1 dev eth1 proto dhcp src 192.168.11.102 metric 101
192.168.11.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.11.102 metric 101
192.168.11.1 dev eth1 proto dhcp scope link src 192.168.11.102 metric 101
solution
(please do comment if something here is wrong or needs clarifications - hopefully someone will find this discussion in the future and find it useful)
In scenario 1, packets from the PC to the server are routed through .11.1.
Since the server also has an .11/24 address, packets from the server to the PC (including replies) are not routed and instead just sent directly over ethernet.
Since the PC does not expect replies from a different machine that the one it contacted, they are discarded on arrival.
The solution to this (if one still thinks the whole thing is a good idea), is to route traffic originating from the server and directed to .11/24 via the router.
This could be accomplished with ip route del 192.168.11.0/24, which would however break connectivity with .11/24 adresses (similar reason as above: incoming traffic would not be routed but replies would)…
The more general solution (which, IDK, may still have drawbacks?) is to setup a secondary routing table:
echo 50 mytable >> /etc/iproute2/rt_tables # this defines the routing table
# (see "ip rule" and "ip route show table <table>")
ip rule add from 192.168.10/24 iif lo table mytable priority 1 # "iff lo" selects only
# packets originating
# from the machine itself
ip route add default via 192.168.10.1 dev eth0 table mytable # "dev eth0" is the interface
# with the .10/24 address,
# and might be superfluous
Now, in my mind, that should break connectivity with .10/24 addresses just like ip route del above, but in practice it does not seem to (if I remember I’ll come back and explain why after studying some more)
My guess is that the server receives the packet from the client with src .11.101 dst .10.102 and tries to respond over the interface that has .11.102 assigned. The client expects a response from src .10.102 and drops the packet. But I would turn on a packet sniffer in the gateway to see if the returning traffic even passes the Firewall in scenario 1.
So the request goes trough but the replies are discarded ? That could actually be it!
I think there was an option to allow that… I’ll search it and give it a try. Thanks!
It has to do with link priority on the server. You’d imagine that a server that receives a packet that has a return address on the same subnet as it self logically would use that interface instead.
A similar thing happens in switches. For example if you have two vlans on a switch and both vlans have an ip assigned, connect a computer to one of the vlans. You will only be able to reach the switch on the non-routed connection. Even if you also are allowed to reach the second vlan through a router/Firewall.
Do you have a route that’s configured to route between the subnets that perhaps changes when you change which interfaces are enabled on your NAS?
My $2 guess is that it’s working fine, because you really shouldn’t expect computers to talk to each other on subnets they’re not a part of without routing, and that the interface disabling you’re doing is changing something in how packets are routed/brings your router into routing packets and thus makes it work then.
You have two NICs in a machine and two networks, one untagged and one tagged? This is a mess for a number of reasons. You have two routes and two adapters that don’t route to the default gateway of each subnet because you’re also tagging one portion of the VLAN traffic, and not tagging the other. That’s your problem.
How you’re going to fix it: learn about VLANs and subnetting, then let your router do the job it’s designed to do. You’ve already defeated the purpose of the VLANs by having them bridged with this one machine anyway. There’s literally no point except this confusing setup.
I don’t think I quite explained the situation well enough: my server only has 1 ethernet port (same as my PC), otherwise I wouldn’t have bothered with vlans (well, I would still have bothered, since my house still only has one “backbone” cable running through it, but I would have configured it on the switches only).
Anyway… a few of the things you say/imply go against my understanding of networking, so one of us would better go back RTFM as you suggest :) (just kidding - most probably I just don’t understand what you mean)
The reason is “asymmetric routing”. The return ping packets are traveling a different route on the way out than on the way back.
- The PC is on .11
- It pings server on .10
- Since PC is on .11, server tries to respond on .11
- This will fail
- Disabling .11 on the server works because it can no longer try to respond in that direction
- I bet it will work if you disable the .11 default route
