Monthly Archives: November 2017

Fun with veth-devices, Linux bridges and VLANs in unnamed Linux network namespaces – IV

Posted on by

In the previous posts of this series

Fun with veth-devices, Linux bridges and VLANs in unnamed Linux network namespaces – I
Fun with veth-devices, Linux bridges and VLANs in unnamed Linux network namespaces – II
Fun with veth-devices, Linux bridges and VLANs in unnamed Linux network namespaces – III

we studied network namespaces and related commands. We also started a series of experiments to deepen our understanding of virtual networking between network namespaces. For practical purposes you can imagine that our abstract network namespaces represent LXC containers in the test networks.

In the last post we have learned how to connect two network namespaces via veth devices and a Linux bridge in a third namespace. In coming experiments we will get more ambitious – and combine our namespaces (or containers) with virtual VLANs. “V” in “VLAN” stands for “virtual”.

So, what are virtual VLANs? They are VLANs in a virtual network environment!

We shall create and define these VLANs essentially by configuring properties of Linux bridges. The topic of this post is an introduction into elementary rules governing virtual VLAN setups based on virtual Linux bridges and veth devices.

I hope such an introduction is useful as there are few articles on the Internet summarizing what happens at ports of virtual Linux bridges with respect to VLAN tagging of Ethernet packets. Actually, I found some of the respective rules by doing experiments with bridges for kernel 4.4. I was too lazy to study source codes. So, please, correct me and write me a mail if I made mistakes.

VLANs

VLANs define specific and very often isolated paths for Ethernet packets moving through a network. At some “junctions and crossings” only certain OUT paths are open for arriving packets, depending on how a packet is marked or “tagged”. Junctions and crossings are e.g. represented in a network by devices as real or virtual bridges. We can say: Ethernet packets are only allowed to move along only In/OUT directions in VLAN sensitive network devices. All decisions are made on the link layer level, i.e. on layer 2 of the TCP/IP layer model. IP addresses may influence entries into VLANs at routers – but once inside a VLAN criteria like “tags” of a packet and certain settings of connection ports open or close paths through the network:

VLANs are based on VLAN IDs (integer numbers) and a corresponding tagging of Ethernet packets – and on analyzing these tags at certain devices/interfaces or ports. In real and virtual Ethernet cards so called sub-interfaces associated with VLAN IDs typically send/receive tagged packets into/from VLANs. In (virtual) bridges ports can be associated with VLAN IDs and open only for packets with matching “tags”. A VLAN ID assigned to a port is called a “VID“. An Ethernet packet normally has one VLAN tag, identifying to which VLAN it belongs to. Such a tag can be set, changed or removed in certain VLAN aware devices.

A packet routed into a sub-interface gets a VLAN tag with the VLAN ID of the sub-interface. We shall see that such tagging sub-devices can be defined for virtual Ethernet NICs like the endpoints of veth-devices. The tagging rules at bridge ports are more complicated and device and/or vendor dependent. I list rules for Linux bridge ports in a separate paragraph below.

Isolation by VID tags / broadcasts

VLANs can be used to to isolate network communication paths and circuits between systems, hosts and network namespaces against each other. VLANs can be set up in virtual networks on virtualization hosts, too; this is of major importance for the hosting of containers. We have a chance here to isolate the traffic between certain containers by setting up tagged VLAN connection lines or well configured virtual bridges with tagging ports between them.

An important property of VLANs is:

Ethernet broadcast packets (e.g. required for ARP) are not allowed to cross the borders of VLANs. Thus the overall traffic can be reduced significantly in some network setups.

The attentive reader may already guess that a problem will await us regarding tagging sub-devices of (virtual or real) NICs or veth endpoints in a network namespace: How to enforce that the right sub-device is chosen such that the Ethernet packets get the tag they need to reach their targets outside the namespace? And what to do about broadcasts going outward from the namespace? This problem will be solved in a later post.

Trunks

Whenever we use the word “trunk” in connection with VLANs we mean that an interface, port or a limited connection line behaves neutral with respect to multiple VLAN IDs and allows the transport of packets from different VLANs to some neighbor device – which then may differentiate again (via sub-devices or port rules).

Kernel requirements for VLANs and tagging

Note:

On a Linux system the kernel module “8021q” must be loaded to work with tagged packets. On some Linux distributions you may have to install additional packages to deal with VLANs and 802.1q tags.

Veth devices support VLANs

As with real Ethernet cards we can define VLAN related sub-interfaces of one or of both Ethernet interfaces of a veth device pair. E.g., an interface vethx of a device pair may have two sub-interfaces, “vethx.10” and “vethx.20“. The numbers represent different VLAN IDs. (Actually the sub-interface can have any name; but it is a reasonable convention to use the “.ID” notation.)

As a veth interface may or may not be splitted into a “mother” (trunk) interface and multiple sub-interfaces the following questions arise:

  • If we first define sub-interfaces for VLANs on one interface of a veth device, must we use sub-interfaces on the other veth side, too?
  • What about situations with sub-interfaces on one side of the veth device and a standard interface on the other?
  • Which type of interface can or should we connect to a virtual Linux bridge? If we can connect either: What are the resulting differences?

Connection of veth interfaces to Linux bridges

Actually, we have two possibilities when we want to plug veth interfaces into Linux bridges:

  • We can attach the sub-interfaces of a veth interface to a Linux bridge and create 2 respective ports, each of which receives tagged packets from the outside and emits tagged packets to the outside.
  • Or we can attach the neutral (unsplitted) “trunk” interface at one side of a veth device to a Linux bridge and create a respective port, which may transfer tagged and untagged packets into and out of the bridge. This is even possible if the other interface of the veth device has defined sub-interfaces.

In both cases bridge specific VLAN settings for the bridge ports may have different impacts on the tagging of forwarded IN or OUT packets. We come back to this point in a minute.

Bridge access ports

Besides attaching veth-endpoints (end their sub-devices) to a bridge we can also define bridge ports which play a special role by

  • tagging un-tagged incoming packets, i.e. packets moving from the outside of the bridge through the port into a bridge
  • and re- or un-tagging packets leaving the bridge through the port, i.e. packets moving from the the inside of the bridge to its outside through the port.

Such ports are called “access ports“. On a Linux bridge we will find:

  • Number of the tag that untagged packets which enter the bridge from the bridge’s outside get is called a PVID.
  • The PVID standard value is “1”. We may have to delete this value and redefine the PVID when setting up a VLAN aware bridge.
  • The tag of packets who leave the access port to the inside of the bridge is defined by a “VID”. For packets which enter the access port from the inside of the bridge their tag is probed to be identical with the port’s VID. If there is a deviation the packet is not transported to the outside.
  • A special option flag defines the tag of packets leaving an access port to the outside of the bridge via a veth-subdevice. Such packets may get untagged by setting the flag to the value “untagged”.

This gives us a lot of flexibility. But also a probability for a wrong bridge setup.

Note: Different vendors of real and virtual bridges and switches may define the behavior of an access port with a PVID differently. Often the PVID gets a default value of “1”. And sometime the PVID defines the membership of the port in a VLAN with specific tags outside the bridge. So, you have to be careful and read the documentation.

For Linux bridges you find basic information e.g. at https://www.man7.org/ linux/ man-pages/ man8/ bridge.8.html

Illustration of the options for access ports and veth-based bridge ports

The following drawing illustrates some principles:

We have symbolized packets by diamonds. Different colors correspond to different tag numbers (VLAN IDs – VIDs, PVIDs).

In the scenario of the upper part the two standard access ports on the left side assign green or pink tags to untagged packets coming in from the outside of the bridge. This happens according to respective PVID values. The flag “untagged” ensures that packets leaving the ports to the bridge’s outside first get stripped of any tags. The device itself which sits at the port may change this.

The virtual cable of a veth device can transport Ethernet packets with different VLAN tags. However, packet processing at certain targets like a network namespace or a bridge requires a termination with a suitable Ethernet device, i.e. an interface which can handle the specific tag of packet. This termination device is:

  • either a veth sub-interface located in a specific network namespace
  • or veth sub-interface inside a bridge ( => this creates a bridge port, which requires at least a matching VID)
  • or a veth trunk interface inside a Linux bridge (=> this creates a trunk bridge port, which may or may not require VIDs, but gets no PVID.)

Both variants can also be combined as shown in the lower part of the drawing: One interface ends in a bridge in one namespace, whereas the other interface is located in another namespace and splits up into sub-interfaces for different VLAN IDs.

Untagged packets may be handled by the standard trunk interfaces of a veth device.

Note: In the sketch below the blue packet “x” would never be available in the target namespace for further processing on higher network layers.

So, do not forget to terminate a trunk line with all required sub-interfaces in network namespaces!

A reasonably working setup of course requires measures and adequate settings on the bridge’s side, too. This is especially important for trunk interfaces at a bridge and trunk connection lines used to transport packets of various VLANs over a limited connection path to an external device. We come to back to relevant rules for tagging and filtering inside the bridge later on.

Below we call a veth interface port of a bridge which is based on the standard trunk interface a trunk port.

The importance of route definitions in network namespaces

Inside network namespaces where multiple VLANs terminate, we need properly defined routes for outgoing packets:

Situations where it is unclear through which sub-interface a packet shall be transported to certain target IP addresses, must always be avoided! A packet to a certain destination must be routed into an appropriate VLAN sub-interface! Note that defining such routes is not equivalent to enable routing in the sense of IP forwarding!

Forgetting routes in network namespaces with devices for different VLANs is a classical cause of defunct virtual network connections!

Note that one could avoid ambiguities and unclear conditions also

  1. by using multiple veth connections for different VLANs from a bridge to a namespace,
  2. by defining separate sub-nets containing NICs plus veth endpoints consistent with the VLANs.

You would use sub-net masks and respective IP-address ranges to achieve this. I will investigate a setup based on sub-nets and VLAN-aware bridges in another post series.

Commands to set up veth sub-interfaces for VLANs

Commands to define sub-interfaces of a veth interface and to associate a VLAN ID with each interface typically have the form:

ip link add link vethx name vethx.10 type vlan id 10
ip link add link vethx name vethx.20 type vlan id 20
ip link set vethx up
ip link set vethx.10 up
ip link set vethx.20 up

Sub-interfaces must be set into an active UP status! Inside and outside of bridges.

Setup of VLANs via a Linux bridge

Some years ago one could read articles and forum posts on the Internet in which the authors expressed their opinion that VLANs and bridging are different technologies which should be separated. I take a different point of view:

We regard a virtual bridge not as some additional tool which we somehow plant into an already existing VLAN landscape. Instead, we set up (virtual) VLANs by configuring a virtual Linux bridge.

A Linux bridge today can establish a common “heart” of multiple virtual VLANs – with closing and opening “valves” to separate the traffic of different circulation paths. From a bridge/switch that defines a VLAN we expect

  • the ability to assign VLAN tags to Ethernet packets
  • and the ability to filter packets at certain ports according to the packets’ VLAN tags and defined port/tag relations.
  • and the ability to emit untagged packets at certain ports.

In many cases, when a bridge is at the core of simple separated VLANs, we do not need to tag outgoing packets to clients or network namespaces at all. All junction settings for the packets’ paths are defined inside the bridge!

Tagging, PVIDs and VIDs – VLAN rules at Linux bridge ports

What happens at a bridge port with respect to VLANs and packet tags? Almost the same as for real switches. An important point is:

We must distinguish the treatment of incoming packets from the handling of outgoing packets at one and the same port.

As far as I understand the present working of virtual Linux bridges, the relevant rules for tagging and filtering at bridge ports are the following:

  1. The bridge receives incoming packets at a port and identifies the address information for the packet’s destination (IP => MAC of a target). The bridge then forwards the packet to a suitable port (target port; or sometimes to all ports) for further transport to the destination.
  2. The bridge learns about the right target ports for certain destinations (having an IP- and a MAC-address) by analyzing the entry of ARP protocol packets (answer packets) into the bridge at certain ports.
  3. For setting up VLANs based on a Linux bridge we must explicitly activate “VLAN filtering” on the bridge (commands are given below).
  4. We can assign one or more VIDs to a bridge port. A VID (VLAN ID) is an integer number; the default value is 1. At a port with one or more VIDs both incoming tagged packets from the bride’s outside and outgoing tagged packets forwarded from the bridge’s inside are filtered with respect to their tag number and the port VID(s): Only, if the packet’s tag number is equal to one of the VIDs of the ports the packet is allowed to pass.
  5. Among the VIDs of a port we can choose exactly one to be a so called PVID (Port VLAN ID). The PVID number is used to handle and tag untagged incoming packets. The new tag is then used for filtering inside the bridge at target ports. A port with a PVID is also called “access port”.
  6. Handling of incoming tagged packets at a port based on a veth sub-interface:
    If you attached a sub-interface (for a defined VLAN ID number) to a bridge and assigned a PVID to the resulting port then the tag of the incoming packets is removed and replaced by the PVID before forwarding happens inside the bridge.
  7. Incoming packets at a standard trunk veth interface inside a bridge:
    If you attached a standard (trunk) veth interface to a bridge (trunk interface => trunk port) and packets with different VLAN tags enter the bridge through this port, then only incoming packets with a tag fitting one of the port’s VIDs enter the bridge and are forwarded and later filtered again.
  8. Untagged outgoing packets: Outgoing packets get their tag number removed, if we configure the bride port accordingly: We must mark its egress behavior with a flag “untagged” (via a command option; see below). If the standard veth trunk interface constitutes the port and we set the untagged-flag the packet leaves the bridge untagged.
  9. Retagging of outgoing untagged packets at ports based on veth sub-interfaces:
    If a sub-interface of a veth constitutes the port, an outgoing packet gets tagged with VLAN ID associated with the sub-interface – even if we marked the port with the “untagged” flag.
  10. Carry tags from the inside of a bridge to its outside:
    Alternatively, we can configure ports for outgoing packets such that the packet’s tag, which the packet had inside the bridge, is left unchanged. The port must be configured with a flag “tagged” to achieve this. An outgoing packet leaves a trunk port with the tag it got/had inside the bridge. However, if a veth sub-interface constituted the port the tag of the outgoing packet must match the sub-interface’s VLAN ID to get transported at all. /li>
  11. A port with multiple assigned VIDs and the flag “tagged” is called a “trunk” port. Packets with different tags can be carried along the outgoing virtual cable line. In case of a veth device interface the standard (trunk) interface and not a sub-interface must constitute such a port.

So, unfortunately the rules are many and complicated. We have to be especially careful regarding bridge-ports constituted by VLAN-related sub-devices of veth endpoints.

Note also that point 2 opens the door for attacking a bridge by flooding it with wrong IP/MAC information (ARP spoofing). Really separated VLANs make such attacks more difficult, if not impossible. But often you have hosts or namespaces which are part of two or more VLANs, or you may have routers somewhere which do not filter packet transport sufficiently. Then spoofing attack vectors are possible again – and you need packet filters/firewalls with appropriate rules to prevent such attacks.

Note rule 6 and the stripping of previous tags of incoming packets at a PVID access port based on a veth sub-interface! Some older bridge versions did not work like this. In my opinion this is, however, a very reasonable feature of a virtual bridge/switch:

Stripping tags of packets entering at ports based on veth sub-interfaces allows the bridge to overwrite any external and maybe forged tags. This helps to keep up the integrity of VLAN definitions just by internal bridge settings!

The last three points of our rule list are of major importance if you need to distinguish packets in terms of VLAN IDs outside the bridge! The rules mean that you can achieve a separation of the bridge’s outgoing traffic according to VLAN IDs with two different methods :

  • Trunk interface connection to the bridge and sub-interfaces at the other side of an veth cable.
  • Ports based on veth sub-interfaces at the bridge and veth sub-interfaces at the other side of the cable, too.

We discuss these alternatives some of our next experiments in more detail.

Illustration of packet transport and filtering

The following graphics illustrates packet transport and filtering inside a virtual Linux bridge with a few examples. Packets are symbolized by diamonds. VLAN tags are expressed by colors. PVIDs and VIDS at a port (see below) by dotted squares and normal squares, respectively. The blue circles have no special meaning; here some paths just cross.

The main purpose of this drawing is to visualize our bunch of rules at configured ports and not so much reasonable VLANs; the coming blog posts will discuss multiple simple examples of separated and also coupled VLANs. In the drawing only the left side displays two really separated VLANs. Ports A to D illustrate special rules for specially configured ports. Note that not all possible port configurations are covered by the graphics.

With the rules above you can now follow the paths of different packets through the drawing. This is simple for packet “5”. It gets a pink tag at its entry through the lowest port “D“. Its target is a host in th enetwork segment attached to port C. So, its target port chosen by the bridge is port “C” where it passes through due to the fact that the VID is matching. Packet “2” follows an analogous story along its journey through ports A and B.

All ports on the left (A, B, C, D) have gotten the flag “untagged” for outgoing packets. Therefore packets 5 and 2,6,7 leave the bridge untagged. Note that no pink packets are allowed to enter ports A and B. Vice versa, no green packets are allowed to leave target ports C and D. This is indicated by the filters.

Port “E” on the right side would be a typical example for a trunk port. Incoming and outgoing green, pink and blue packets keep their tags! Packet 8 and packet 9, which both are forwarded to their target port “E“, therefore, move out with their respective green and pink tags. The incoming green packet “7” is allowed to pass due to the green VID at this port.

Port “D“, however, is a strange guy: Here, the PVID (blue) differs from the only VID (green)! Packet “6” can enter the bridge and leave it via target port “B“, which has two VIDs. Note, however, that there is no way back! And the blue packet “3” entering the bridge via trunk port “E” for target port “D” is not allowed to leave the bridge there. Shit happens …

The example of port “D” illustrates that VLAN settings can look different for outgoing and incoming packets at one and the same port. Still, also ports like “D” can be used for reasonable configurations – if applied in a certain way (see coming blog posts).

Commands to set up the VLANs via port configuration of virtual Linux bridges

We first need to make the bridge “VLAN aware“. This is done by explicitly activating VLAN filtering. On a normal system (in the root namespaces) and for a bridge “brx” we could enter

echo 1 > /sys/class/net/brx/bridge/vlan_filtering

But in artificially constructed network namespaces we will not find such a file. Therefore, we have to use a variant of the “ip” command:

ip link set brx type bridge vlan_filtering 1

For adding/removing a VID or PVID to/from a bridge port – more precisely a device interface for which the bridge is a master – we use the “bridge vlan” command. E.g., in the network namespace where the bridge is defined and has a veth-related sub-device as a port the following commands could be used:

bridge vlan add vid 10 pvid untagged dev veth53

bridge vlan add vid 20 untagged dev veth53

bridge vlan del vid 1 dev veth53

See the man page for more details!

Note: We can only choose exactly one VID to be used as a PVID.

As already explained above, the “untagged” option means that we want outgoing packets to leave the port untagged (on egress).

Data transfer between VLANs?

Sometimes you may need to allow for certain clients in one VLAN (with ID x) to access specific services of a server in another VLAN (with ID y). Note that for network traffic to cross VLAN borders you must use routing in the sense of IP forwarding, e.g. in a special network namespace that has connections to both VLANs. In addition you must apply firewall rules to limit the packet exchange to exactly the services you want to allow and eliminate general traffic.

There is one noteworthy and interesting exception:

With the rules above and a suitable PVID, VID setting you can isolate and control traffic by a VLAN from a sender in the direction of certain receivers, but you can allow answering packets to reach several VLANs if the answering sender (i.e. the former receiver) has connections to multiple VLANs – e.g. via a line which transports untagged packets (see below). Again: VLAN regulations can be different for outgoing and incoming packets at a port!

An example is illustrated below:

Intentionally or by accident – the bridge will do what you ask her to do at a port in IN and OUT directions. Packet “2” would never enter and leave the lower port.

However, a setup as in the graphic breaks total isolation, nevertheless! So, regarding security this may be harmful. On the other side it allows for some interesting possibilities with respect to broadcast messages – as with ARP. We shall explore this in some of the coming posts.

Note that we always can involve firewall rules to allow or disallow packet travel across a certain OUT port according to the IP destination addresses expected behind a port!

The importance of a working ARP communication

Broadcast packets are not allowed to leave a VLAN, if no router bridges the VLANs. The ARP protocol requires that broadcast messages from a sender, who wants to know the MAC address of an IP destination, reach their target. For this to work your VID and PVID settings must allow the returning answer to reach the original sender of the broadcast. Among other things this requires special settings at trunk ports which send untagged packets from different VLANs to a target and receive untagged packets from this target. Without a working ARP communication on higher network protocol layers to and from a member of a VLAN to other members will fail!

VLANs in one and the same sub-net?

So far, we have discussed packet transport by considering packet tags and potentially blocking VID rules of devices and bridge ports. We have not talked about IP-addresses and net-segregation on this level. So, what about sub-net definitions?

This is a critical aspect the reader should think a bit about when following the discussions of concrete examples in the forthcoming posts. In most of the cases the VLAN definitions for bridge ports will separate traffic between external systems/devices with IP-addresses belonging to one and the same sub-network!

Thus: VLANs offer segregation beyond the level of sub-networks.

However, strange situations may occur when you place multiple tag-aware devices – as e.g. sub-devices (for different VIDs) of a veth-endpoint – into a network namespace (without a bridge). How to choose the right channel (veth-sub-device) then automatically for packets which are send to the outside of the namespace? And what about broadcasts required e.g. by ARP to work?

Conclusion

Veth devices and virtual Linux bridges support VLANs, VLAN IDs and a tagging of Ethernet packets. Tagging at pure veth interfaces outside a bridge requires the definition of sub-interfaces with associated VLAN IDs. The cable between a veth interface pair can be seen as a trunk cable; it can transport packets with different VLAN tags.

A virtual Linux bridge can become the master of standard interfaces and/or sub-interfaces of veth devices – resulting in different port rules with respect to VLAN tagging. Similar to real switches we can assign VIDs and PVIDs to the ports of a Linux bridge. VIDs allow for filtering and thus VIDs are essential for VLAN definitions via a bridge. PVIDs allow for a tagging of incoming untagged packets or a retagging of packets entering through a port based on veth sub-interfaces. We can also define whether packets shall leave a port outwards of the bridge untagged or tagged.

Separated VLANs can, therefore, be set up with pure settings for ports inside a bridge without necessarily requiring any package tagging outside.

We now have a toolset for building reasonable VLANs with the help of one or more virtual bridges. In the next blog post

Fun with veth-devices, Linux bridges and VLANs in unnamed Linux network namespaces – V

we shall apply what we have learned for the setup of two separated VLANs in an experimental network namespace environment.

 

Fun with veth-devices, Linux bridges and VLANs in unnamed Linux network namespaces – III

Posted on by

In the first blog post
Fun with veth-devices, Linux bridges and VLANs in unnamed Linux network namespaces – I
of this series about virtual networking between network namespaces I had discussed some basic Linux commands to set up and enter network namespaces on a Linux system.

In a second post
Fun with veth-devices, Linux bridges and VLANs in unnamed Linux network namespaces – II
I suggested and described several networking experiments which can quickly be set up by these tools. As containers are based on namespaces we can study virtual networking between containers on a host in principle just by connecting network namespaces. Makes e.g. the planning of firewall rules and VLANs a bit easier …

The virtual environment we want to build up and explore step by step is displayed in the following graphics:

In this article we shall cover experiment 1 and experiment 2 discussed in the last article – i.e. we start with the upper left corner of the drawing.

Experiment 1: Connect two network namespaces directly

This experiments creates the dotted line between netns1 and netns2. Though simple this experiments lays a foundation for all other experiments.

We place the two different Ethernet interfaces of a veth device in the two (unnamed) network namespaces (with hostnames) netns1 and netns2. We assign IP addresses (of the same network class) to the interfaces and check a basic communication between the network namespaces. The situation corresponds to the following simple picture:

What shell commands can be used for achieving this? You may put the following lines in a file for keeping them for further experiments or to create a shell script: 

unshare --net --uts /bin/bash &
export pid_netns1=$!
nsenter -t $pid_netns1 -u hostname netns1
unshare --net --uts /bin/bash &
export pid_netns2=$!
nsenter -t $pid_netns2 -u hostname netns2
ip link add veth11 netns $pid_netns1 type veth peer name veth22 netns $pid_netns2   
nsenter -t $pid_netns1 -u -n /bin/bash
ip addr add 192.168.5.1/24 brd 192.168.5.255 dev veth11
ip link set veth11 up
ip link set lo up
ip a s
exit
nsenter -t $pid_netns2 -u -n /bin/bash
ip addr add 192.168.5.2/24 brd 192.168.5.255 dev veth22
ip link set veth22 up
ip a s
exit
lsns -t net -t uts

If you copy these lines to the prompt of a root shell of some host “mytux” you will get something like the following: 

mytux:~ # unshare --net --uts /bin/bash &
[2] 32146
mytux:~ # export pid_netns1=$!

[2]+  Stopped                 unshare --net --uts /bin/bash
mytux:~ # nsenter -t $pid_netns1 -u hostname netns1
mytux:~ # unshare --net --uts /bin/bash &
[3] 32154
mytux:~ # export pid_netns2=$!

[3]+  Stopped                 unshare --net --uts /bin/bash
mytux:~ # nsenter -t $pid_netns2 -u hostname netns2
mytux:~ # ip link add veth11 netns $pid_netns1 type veth peer name veth22 netns $pid_netns2   
mytux:~ # nsenter -t 
$pid_netns1 -u -n /bin/bash
netns1:~ # ip addr add 192.168.5.1/24 brd 192.168.5.255 dev veth11
netns1:~ # ip link set veth11 up
netns1:~ # ip link set lo up
netns1:~ # ip a s
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1   
    link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
    inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    inet6 ::1/128 scope host 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
2: veth11: <NO-CARRIER,BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state DOWN group default qlen 1000     
    link/ether da:34:49:a6:18:ce brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff link-netnsid 0
    inet 192.168.5.1/24 brd 192.168.5.255 scope global veth11
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
netns1:~ # exit
exit
mytux:~ # nsenter -t $pid_netns2 -u -n /bin/bash
netns2:~ # ip addr add 192.168.5.2/24 brd 192.168.5.255 dev veth22
netns2:~ # ip link set veth22 up
netns2:~ # ip a s
1: lo: <LOOPBACK> mtu 65536 qdisc noop state DOWN group default qlen 1
    link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
2: veth22: <NO-CARRIER,BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state DOWN group default qlen 1000   
    link/ether f2:ee:52:f9:92:40 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff link-netnsid 0
    inet 192.168.5.2/24 brd 192.168.5.255 scope global veth22
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    inet6 fe80::f0ee:52ff:fef9:9240/64 scope link tentative 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
netns2:~ # exit
exit
mytux:~ # lsns -t net -t uts
        NS TYPE NPROCS   PID USER  COMMAND
4026531838 uts     387     1 root  /usr/lib/systemd/systemd --switched
4026531963 net     385     1 root  /usr/lib/systemd/systemd --switched
4026532178 net       1   581 root  /usr/sbin/haveged -w 1024 -v 0 -F
4026540861 net       1  4138 rtkit /usr/lib/rtkit/rtkit-daemon
4026540984 uts       1 32146 root  /bin/bash
4026540986 net       1 32146 root  /bin/bash
4026541078 uts       1 32154 root  /bin/bash
4026541080 net       1 32154 root  /bin/bash
mytux:~ #

Of course, you recognize some of the commands from my first blog post. Still, some details are worth a comment:

Unshare, background shells and shell variables

We create a separate network (and uts) namespace with the “unshare” command and background processes.

unshare –net –uts /bin/bash &

Note the options! We export shell variables with the PIDs of the started background processes [$!] to have these PIDs available in subshells later on. Note: From our original terminal window (in my case a KDE “konsole” window) we can always open a subshell window with: 

mytux:~ # konsole &>/dev/null

You may use another terminal window command on your system. The output redirection is done only to avoid KDE message clattering. In the subshell you may enter a previously created network namespace netnsX by

nsenter -t $pid_netnsX -u -n /bin/bash

Hostnames to distinguish namespaces at the shell prompt

Assignment of hostnames to the background processes via commands like

nsenter -t $pid_netns1 -u hostname netns1

This works through the a separation of the uts namespace. See the first post for an explanation.

Create veth devices with the “ip” command

The key command to create a veth device and to assign its two interfaces to 2 different network namespaces is:

ip link add veth11 netns $pid_netns1 type veth peer name veth22 netns $pid_netns2

Note, that we can use PIDs to identify the target network namespaces! Explicit names of the network namespaces are not required!

The importance of a running lo-device in each network namespace

We intentionally did not set the loopback device “lo” up in netns2. This leads to an interesting observation, which many admins are not aware of:

The lo device is required (in UP status) to be able to ping network interfaces (here e.g. veth11) in the local namespace!

This is standard: If you do not specify the interface to ping from via an option “-I” the ping command will use device lo as a default! The ping traffic runs through it! Normally, we just do not realize this point, because lo almost always is UP on a standard system (in its root namespace).

For testing the role of “lo” we now open a separate terminal window: 

mytux:~ # konsole &>/dev/null

There:

mytux:~ # nsenter -t $pid_netns2 -u -n /bin/bash
netns2:~ # ping 192.168.5.2
PING 192.168.5.2 (192.168.5.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
^C
--- 192.168.5.2 ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 1008ms   

netns2:~ # ip link set lo up
netns2:~ # ping 192.168.5.2 -c2
PING 192.168.5.2 (192.168.5.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.5.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.017 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.5.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.033 ms

--- 192.168.5.2 ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 998ms    
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.017/0.034 ms

And: Within the same namespace and “lo” down you cannot even ping the second Ethernet interface of a veth device from the first interface – even if they belong to the same network class!

Open a new sub shell and enter e.g. netns1 there: 

netns1:~ # ip link add vethx type veth peer name vethy 
netns1:~ # ip addr add 192.168.20.1/24 brd 192.168.20.255 dev vethx    
netns1:~ # ip addr add 192.168.20.2/24 brd 192.168.20.255 dev vethy    
netns1:~ # ip link set vethx up
netns1:~ # ip link set vethy up
netns1:~ # ping 192.168.20.2 -I 192.168.20.1
PING 192.168.20.2 (192.168.20.2) from 192.168.20.1 : 56(84) bytes of data.    
^C
--- 192.168.20.2 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 3000ms
netns1:~ # ip link set lo up
netns1:~ # ping 192.168.20.2 -I 192.168.20.1       
PING 192.168.20.2 (192.168.20.2) from 192.168.20.1 : 56(84) bytes of data.   
64 bytes from 192.168.20.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.019 ms     
64 bytes from 192.168.20.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.052 ms                                
^C                                                              
--- 192.168.20.2 ping statistics ---                            
2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 999ms   
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.019/0.035/0.052/0.017 ms               
netns1:~ #

Connection test

Now back to our experiment. Let us now try to ping netns1 from netns2: 

netns2:~ # ip a s
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1   
    link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
    inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    inet6 ::1/128 scope host 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
2: veth22: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP group default qlen 1000     
    link/ether f2:ee:52:f9:92:40 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff link-netnsid 0
    inet 192.168.5.2/24 brd 192.168.5.255 scope global veth22
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    inet6 fe80::f0ee:52ff:fef9:9240/64 scope link 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
netns2:~ # ping 192.168.5.1
PING 192.168.5.1 (192.168.5.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.5.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.030 ms  
64 bytes from 192.168.5.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.033 ms  
64 bytes from 192.168.5.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.036 ms  
^C
--- 192.168.5.1 ping statistics ---                                                                  
3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1998ms                                       
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.030/0.033/0.036/0.002 ms                                                    
netns2:~ #

OK! And vice versa: 

mytux:~ #  nsenter -t $pid_netns1 -u -n /bin/bash
netns1:~ #  nsenter -t $pid_netns2 -u -n /bin/bash
netns1:~ # ping 192.168.5.2 -c2
PING 192.168.5.2 (192.168.5.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.5.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.023 ms   
64 bytes from 192.168.5.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.023 ms

--- 192.168.5.2 ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1003ms   
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.023/0.023/0.023/0.000 ms
netns1:~ #

Our direct communication via veth works as expected! Network packets are not stopped by network namespace borders – this would not make much sense.

Experiment 2: Connect two namespaces via a bridge in a third namespace

We now try a connection of netns1 and netns2 via a Linux bridge “brx“, which we place in a third namespace netns3:

Note:

This is a standard way to connect containers on a host!

LXC tools as well as libvirt/virt-manager would help you to establish such a bridge! However, the bridge would normally be place inside the host’s root namespace. In my opinion this is not a good idea:

A separate 3rd namespace gets the the bridge and related firewall and VLAN rules outside the control of the containers. But a separate namespace also helps to isolate the host against any communication (and possible attacks) coming from the containers!

So, let us close our sub terminals from the first experiment and kill the background shells: 

mytux:~ # kill -9 32146
[2]-  Killed                  unshare --net --uts /bin/bash
mytux:~ # kill -9 32154
[3]+  Killed                  unshare --net --uts /bin/bash

We adapt our setup commands now to create netns3 and bridge “brx” there by using “brctl bradd“. Futhermore we add two different veth devices; each with one interface in netns3. We attach the interface to the bridge via “brctl addif“: 

unshare --net --uts /bin/bash &
export pid_netns1=$!
nsenter -t $pid_netns1 -u hostname netns1
unshare --net --uts /bin/bash &
export pid_netns2=$!
nsenter -t $pid_netns2 -u hostname netns2
unshare --net --uts /bin/bash &
export pid_netns3=$!
nsenter -t $pid_netns3 -u hostname netns3
nsenter -t $pid_netns3 -u -n /bin/bash
brctl addbr brx  
ip link set brx up
exit 
ip link add veth11 netns $pid_netns1 type veth peer name veth13 netns $pid_netns3     
ip link add veth22 netns $pid_netns2 type veth peer name veth23 netns $pid_netns3    
nsenter -t $pid_netns1 -u -n /bin/bash
ip addr add 192.168.5.1/24 brd 192.
168.5.255 dev veth11
ip link set veth11 up
ip link set lo up
ip a s
exit
nsenter -t $pid_netns2 -u -n /bin/bash
ip addr add 192.168.5.2/24 brd 192.168.5.255 dev veth22
ip link set veth22 up
ip a s
exit
nsenter -t $pid_netns3 -u -n /bin/bash
ip link set veth13 up
ip link set veth23 up
brctl addif brx veth13
brctl addif brx veth23
exit

It is not necessary to show the reaction of the shell to these commands. But note the following:

  • The bridge has to be set into an UP status.
  • The veth interfaces located in netns3 do not get an IP address. Actually, a veth interface plays a different role on a bridge than in normal surroundings.
  • The bridge itself does not get an IP address.

Bridge ports

By attaching the veth interfaces to the bridge we create a “port” on the bridge, which corresponds to some complicated structures (handled by the kernel) for dealing with Ethernet packets crossing the port. You can imagine the situation as if e.g. the veth interface veth13 corresponds to the RJ45 end of a cable which is plugged into the port. Ethernet packets are taken at the plug, get modified sometimes and then are transferred across the port to the inside of the bridge.

However, when we assign an Ethernet address to the other interface, e.g. veth11 in netns1, then the veth “cable” ends in a full Ethernet device, which accepts network commands as “ping” or “nc”.

No IP address for the bridge itself!
We do NOT assign an IP address to the bridge itself; this is a bit in contrast to what e.g. happens when you set up a bridge for networking with the tools of virt-manager. Or what e.g. Opensuse does, when you setup a KVM virtualization host with YaST. In all these cases something like 

ip addr add 192.168.5.100/24 brd 192.168.5.255 dev brx

happens in the background. However, I do not like this kind of implicit politics, because it opens ways into the namespace surrounding the bridge! And it is easy to forget this bridge interface both in VLAN and firewall rules.

Almost always, there is no necessity to provide an IP address to the bridge itself. If we need an interface of a namespace, a container or the host to a Linux bridge we can always use a veth device. This leads to a much is much clearer situation; you see the Ethernet interface and the port to the bridge explicitly – thus you have much better control, especially with respect to firewall rules.

Enter network namespace netns3

Now we open a terminal as a sub shell (as we did in the previous example) and enter netns3 to have a look at the interfaces and the bridge. 

mytux:~ # nsenter -t $pid_netns3 -u -n /bin/bash
netns3:~ # brctl show brx
bridge name     bridge id               STP enabled     interfaces
brx             8000.000000000000       no
netns3:~ # ip a s
1: lo: <LOOPBACK> mtu 65536 qdisc noop state DOWN group default qlen 1
    link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
2: brx: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP group default qlen 1000
    link/ether ce:fa:74:92:b5:00 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    inet6 fe80::1c08:76ff:fe0c:7dfe/64 scope link 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
3: veth13@if2: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue master brx state UP group default qlen 1000   
    link/ether ce:fa:74:92:b5:00 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff link-netnsid 0
    inet6 fe80::ccfa:74ff:fe92:b500/64 scope link 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
4: veth23@if2: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue master brx state UP group default qlen 1000   
    link/ether fe:5e:0b:d1:44:69 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff link-netnsid 1
    inet6 fe80::fc5e:
bff:fed1:4469/64 scope link 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
netns3:~ # bridge link
3: veth13 state UP @brx: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 master brx state forwarding priority 32 cost 2    
4: veth23 state UP @brx: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 master brx state forwarding priority 32 cost 2

Useful commands

Let us briefly discuss some useful commands:

Incomplete information of “brctl show”
Unfortunately, the standard command

brctl show brx

does not work properly inside network namespaces; it does not produce a complete output. E.g., the attached interfaces are not shown. However, the command

ip a s

shows all interfaces and their respective “master“. The same is true for the very useful “bridge” command :

bridge link

If you want to see even more details on interfaces use

ip -d a s

and grep the line for a specific interface.

Just for completeness: To create a bridge and add a veth devices to the bridge, we could also have used: 

ip link add name brx type bridge
ip link set brx up
ip link set dev veth13 master brx   
ip link set dev veth23 master brx

Connectivity test with ping
Now, let us turn to netns1 and test connectivity: 

mytux:~ # nsenter -t $pid_netns1 -u -n /bin/bash
netns1:~ # ip a s 
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1
    link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
    inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    inet6 ::1/128 scope host 
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
2: veth11@if3: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP group default qlen 1000    
    link/ether 6a:4d:0c:30:12:04 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff link-netnsid 0
    inet 192.168.5.1/24 brd 192.168.5.255 scope global veth11
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever                                                       
    inet6 fe80::684d:cff:fe30:1204/64 scope link                                                     
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever                                                       
netns1:~ # ping 192.168.5.2
PING 192.168.5.2 (192.168.5.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.5.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.039 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.5.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.045 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.5.2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.054 ms
^C
--- 192.168.5.2 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1998ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.039/0.046/0.054/0.006 ms
netns1:~ # nc -l 41234

Note that – as expected – we do not see anything of the bridge and its interfaces in netns1! Note that the bridge basically is a device on the data link layer, i.e. OSI layer 2. In the current configuration we did nothing to stop the propagation of Ethernet packets on this layer – this will change in further experiments.

Connectivity test with netcat
At the end of our test we used the netcat command “nc” to listen on a TCP port 41234. At another (sub) terminal we can now start a TCP communication from netns2 to the TCP port 41234 in netns1: 

mytux:~ # nsenter -t $pid_netns2 -u -n /bin/bash
netns2:~ # nc 192.168.5.1 41234
alpha
beta

This leads to an output after the last command in netns1: 

netns1:~ # nc -l 41234
alpha
beta

So, we have full connectivity – not only for ICMP packets, but also for TCP packets. In yet another terminal: 

mytux:~ # nsenter -t $pid_netns1 -u -n /bin/bash
netns1:~ # netstat -a
Active 
Internet connections (servers and established)
Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address           Foreign Address         State      
tcp        0      0 *:41234                 *:*                     LISTEN      
tcp        0      0 192.168.5.1:41234       192.168.5.2:45122       ESTABLISHED     
Active UNIX domain sockets (servers and established)
Proto RefCnt Flags       Type       State         I-Node Path   
netns1:~ #

Conclusion

It is pretty easy to connect network namespaces with veth devices. The interfaces can be assigned to different network namespaces by using a variant of the “ip” command. The target network namespaces can be identified by PIDs of their basic processes. We can link to namespaces directly via the interfaces of one veth device.

An alternative is to use a Linux bridge (for Layer 2 transport) in yet another namespace. The third namespace provides better isolation; the bridge is out of the view and control of the other namespaces.

We have seen that the commands “ip a s” and “bridge link” are useful to get information about the association of bridges and their assigned interfaces/ports in network namespaces.

In the coming article
Fun with veth-devices, Linux bridges and VLANs in unnamed Linux network namespaces – IV
we extend our efforts to creating VLANs with the help of our Linux bridge. Stay tuned ….

 

Fun with veth-devices, Linux bridges and VLANs in unnamed Linux network namespaces – II

Posted on by

The topics of this blog post series are

  • the basic handling of network namespaces
  • and virtual networking between different network namespaces.

One objective is a better understanding of the mechanisms behind the setup for future (LXC) containers on a host; containers are based on namespaces (see the last post of this series for a mini introduction). The most important Linux namespace for networking is the so called “network namespace”.

As explained in the previous article
Fun with veth-devices, Linux bridges and VLANs in unnamed Linux network namespaces – I
it is interesting and worthwhile to perform network experiments without referring to explicit names for network namespaces. Especially, when you plan to administer LXC containers with libvirt/virt-manager. You then cannot use the standard LXC tools or “ip“-options for explicit network namespace names.

We, therefore, had a look at relevant options for the ip-command and other typical userspace tools. The basic trick was/is to refer to PIDs of the processes originally associated with network namespaces. I discussed commands for listing network namespaces and associated processes. In addition, I showed how one can use shells for entering new or existing unnamed network namespaces. We finalized the first post with the creation of a veth device inside a distinct network namespace.

Advanced experiments – communication scenarios between network namespaces and groups of namespaces (or containers)

Regarding networking a container is represented by a network namespace, associated network devices and rules. A network namespace provides an isolation of the network devices assigned to this namespace plus related packet filter and routing rules from/against other namespaces/containers.

But very often you may have to deal not only with one container on a host but a whole bunch of containers. Therefore, another objective of experiments with network namespaces is

  • to study the setup of network communication lines between different containers – i.e. between different network namespaces –
  • and to study mechanisms for the isolation of the network packet flow between certain containers/namespaces against packets and from communication lines of other containers/namespaces or/and the host.

The second point may appear strange at first sight: Didn’t we learn that the fundamental purpose of (network) namespaces already is isolation? Yes, the isolation of devices, but not the isolation of network packet crossing the network namespace borders. In realistic situations we, in addition, need to establish and at the same time isolate communication paths in between different containers/namespaces and to their environment.

Typically, we have to address a grouping of containers/namespaces in this context:

  • Different containers on one or several hosts should be able to talk to each other and the Internet – but only if these containers are members of a defined group.
  • At the same time we may need to isolate the communication occurring within a group of containers/namespaces against the communication flow of containers/namespaces of another group and against communication lines of the host.
  • Still, we may need to allow namespaces/containers of different groups to use a common NIC to the Internet despite an otherwise isolated operation.

All this requires a confinement of the flow of distinguished network packages along certain paths between network namespaces. Thus, the question comes up how to achieve separated virtual communication circuits between network namespaces already on the L2 level and across possibly involved virtual devices.

Veth devices, VLAN aware Linux bridges (or other types of virtual Linux switches) and VLAN tagging play a key role in simple (virtual) infrastructure approaches to such challenges. Packet filter rules of Linux’ netfilter components additionally support the control of packet flow through such (virtual) infrastructure elements. Note:

The nice thing about network namespaces is that we can study all required basic networking principles easily without setting up LXC containers.

Test scenarios – an overview

I want to outline a collection of interesting scenarios for establishing and isolating communication paths between namespaces/containers. We start with a basic communication line between 2 different network namespaces. By creating more namespaces and veth devices, a VLAN aware bridge and VLAN rules we extend the test scenario’s complexity step by step to cover the questions posed above. See the graphics below.

Everything actually happens on one host. But the elements of lower part (below the horizontal black line) also could be placed on a different host. The RJ45 symbols represent Ethernet interfaces of veth devices. These interfaces, therefore, appear mostly in pairs (as long as we do not define sub interfaces). The colors represent IDs (VIDs) of VLANs. Three standard Linux bridges are involved; on each of these bridges we shall activate VLAN filtering. We shall learn that we can, but do not need to tag packets outside of VLAN filtering bridges – with a few interesting exceptions.

I suggest 10 experiments to perform within the drawn virtual network. We cannot discuss details of all experiments in one blog post; but in the coming posts we shall walk through this graphics in several steps from the top to the bottom and from the left to the right. Each step will be accompanied by experiments.

I use the abbreviation “netns” for “network namespace” below. Note in advance that the processes (shells) underlying the creation of network namespaces in our experiments always establish “uts” namespaces, too. Thus we can assign different hostnames to the basic shell processes – this helps us to distinguish in which network namespace shell we operate by just looking at the prompt of a shell. All the “names” as netns1, netns2, … appearing in the examples below actually are hostnames – and not real network namespace names in the sense of “ip” commands or LXC tools.

I should remark that I did the experiments below not just for fun, but because the use of VLAN tags in environments with Linux bridges are discussed in many Internet articles in a way which I find confusing and misleading. This is partially due to the fact that the extensions of the Linux kernel for VLAN definitions with the help of Linux bridges have reached a stable status only with kernel 3.9 (as far as I know). So many articles before 2014 present ideas which do not fit to the present options. Still, even today, you stumble across discussions which claim that you either do VLANs or bridging – but not both – and if, then only with different bridges for different VLANs. I personally think that today the only reason for such approaches would be performance – but not a strict separation of technologies.

Experiments

I hope the following experiments will provide readers some learning effects and also some fun with veth devices and bridges:

Experiment 1: Connect two namespaces directly
First we shall place the two different Ethernet interfaces of a veth device in two different (unnamed) network namespaces (with hostnames) netns1 and netns2. We assign IP addresses (of the same network class) to the interfaces and check a basic communication between the network namespaces. Simple and effective!

Experiment 2: Connect two namespaces via a bridge in a third namespace
Afterwards we instead connect our two different network namespaces netns1 and netns2 via a Linux bridge “brx” in a third namespace netns3. Note: We would use a separate 3rd namespace also in a scenario with containers to get the the bridge and related firewall and VLAN rules outside the control of the containers. In addition such a separate namespace helps to isolate the host against any communication (and possible attacks) coming from the containers.

Experiment 3: Establish isolated groups of containers
We set up two additional network namespaces (netns4, netns5). We check communication between all four namespaces attached to brx. Then we put netns1 and netns2 into a group (“green”) – and netns4 and netns5 into another group (“rosa”). Communication between member namespaces of a group shall be allowed – but not between namespaces of different groups. Despite the fact that all namespaces are part of the same IP address class! We achieve this on the L2 level by assigning VLAN IDs (VIDs) to the bridge ports to which we attach netns1, netns2, em>netns2 and netns5.

We shall see how “PVIDs” are assigned to a specific port for tagging packets that move into the bridge through this port and how we untag outgoing packets at the very same port. Conclusion: So far, no tagging is required outside the Linux bridge brx for building simple virtual VLANs!

Experiment 4: Tagging outside the bridge?
Although not required we repeat the last experiment with defined subinterfaces of two veth devices (used for netns2 and netns5) – just to check that packet tagging occurs correctly outside the bridge. This is done in preparation for other experiments. But for the isolation of VLAN communication paths inside the bridge only the tagging of packets coming into the bridge through a port is relevant: A packet coming from outside is first untagged and then retagged when moving into the bridge. The reverse untagging and retagging for outgoing packets is done correctly, too – but the tag “color” outside the bridge actually plays no role for the filtered communication paths inside the bridge.

Experiment 5: Connection to a second independent environment – with keeping up namespace grouping
In reality we may have situations in which some containers of a defined group will be placed on different hosts. Can we extend the concept of separating container/namespace groups by VLAN tagging to a different hosts via two bridges? Bridge brx on the first host and a new bridge bry on the second (netns8)? Yes, we can!

In reality we would connect two hosts by Ethernet cards. We simulate this situation in our virtual environment again with a veth interface pair between "netns3" and “netns8“. But
as we absolutely do not want to mix packets of our two groups we now need to tag the packets on their way between the bridges. We shall see how to use subinterfaces of the (veth) Ethernet interfaces to achieve this. Note, that the two resulting communication paths between bridges may potentially lead to loops! We shall deal with this problem, too.

Experiment 6: Two tags on a bridge port? Members of two groups?
Now, we could have containers (namespaces) that should be able to communicate with both groups. Then we would need 2 VIDs on a bridge port for this special container/namespace. We establish netns9 for this test. We shall see that it is no problem to assign two VIDs to a port to filter the differently tagged packets going from the bridge outwards. Nevertheless we run into problems – not because of the assignment of 2 VIDs, but due the fact that we can only assign one PVID to each bridge port. This seems to limit our possibilities to tag incoming packets if we choose its value to be among the VIDS defined already on other ports. Then we cannot direct packages to 2 groups for existing VIDs.

We have to solve this by defining new additional paths inside the bridge for packages coming in through the port for netns9: We assign a PVID to the this port, which is different from all VIDs defined so far. Then we assign additional VIDs with the value of this new PVID to the ports of the members of our existing groups. An interesting question then is: Are the groups still isolated? Is pinging interrupted? And how to stop man-in-the-middle-attacks of netns9?

The answer lies in some firewall rules which must be established on the bridge! In case we use iptables (instead of the more suited ebtables) these rules MUST refer to the ports of the bridge via physdev options and IP addresses. However, ARP packets – coming from netns9 should pass to all interfaces of members of our groups.

Experiment 7: Separate the network groups by different IP address class
If we wanted a total separation of two groups we would also separate them on L3 – i.e we would assign IP addresses of separate IP address networks to the members of the different groups. Will transport across our bridges still work correctly under this condition? It should …. However, netns9 will get a problem then. We shall see that he could still communicate with both groups if we used subinterfaces for his veth interface – and defined two routes for him.

Experiment 8: Connection of container groups and the host to the Internet
Our containers/namespaces of group “green”, which are directly or indirectly attached to bridge brx shall be able reach the Internet. The host itself, too. Normally, you would administer the host via an administration network, to which the host would connect via a specific network card separate from the card used to connect the containers/namespaces to the Internet. However, what can we do, if we only have exactly one Ethernet card available?

Then some extra care is required. There are several possible solutions for an isolation of the host’s traffic to the Internet from the rest of the system. I present one which makes use of what we have learned so far about VLAN tagging. We set up a namespace netns10 with a third bridge “brz“. We apply VLAN tagging in this namespace – inside the bridge, but also outside. Communication to the outside requires routing, too. Still, we need some firewall rules – including the interfaces of the bridge. The bridge can be interpreted as an IN/OUT interface plane to the firewall; there is of course only one firewall although the drawing indicates two sets of rules.

“netns11” just represents the Internet with some routing. We can replace the Ethernet card drawn in netns10 by a veth interface to achieve a connection to netns11; the second interface inside netns11 then represents some host on the Internet. It can be simulated by a tap device. We can check, how signals move to and from this “host”.

Purely academic?

The scenarios discussed above seem to be complicated. Actually, they are not as soon as we get used to the involved elements and rules. But, still the whole setup may seem a bit academic … However, if you think a bit about it, you may find that on a development system for web services you may have

  • two containers for frontend apache systems with load balancing,
  • two containers for web service servers,
  • two or three containers for a MySQL-systems with different types of replication,
  • one container representing a user system,
  • one container to simulate OWASP and other attacks on the servers and the user client.

If we want to simulate attacks on a web-service system with such a configuration on one host only, you are not so far from the scenario presented. Modern PC-systems (with a lot of memory) do have the capacity to host a lot of containers – if the load is limited.

Anyway, enough stuff for the coming blog posts … During the posts I shall present the commands to set up the above network. These commands can be used in a script which gets longer with each post. But we start with a simple example – see:

Fun with veth-devices, Linux bridges and VLANs in unnamed Linux network namespaces – III