Tag Archives: VIDs

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

Posted on by

During previous posts of our excursion on network namespaces, veth-devices and virtual networking

  • Fun with … – III [Connecting network namespaces (or containers) by veth devices and virtual Linux bridges],
  • Fun with … – IV [Virtual VLANs for network namespaces (or containers) and rules for VLAN tagging at Linux bridge ports],
  • Fun with …. – V [Creation of two virtual VLANs for 2 groups of network namespaces/containers by configuring a Linux bridge]
  • Fun with …. – VI [Connection of two Linux bridges each with 2 VLANs]

we have studied virtual VLANs a bit. We saw that virtual VLANs can be defined just by applying certain configuration options to Linux bridge ports. In addition, virtual VLANs can be extended over several Linux bridges via veth sub-interfaces OR pure veth trunk connections.

These possibilities support already a large variety of options for the configuration of virtual networks (e.g. for a bunch of containers). We discussed some simple illustrative test cases, in which containers were represented by simple network namespaces.

However, so far, four properties characterized our test configurations:

  • All network namespaces (or container hosts) connected to a Linux bridge belonged to exactly one of the involved VLANs.
  • All network namespaces (or container hosts) belonging to the involved VLANs were connected to a Linux bridge via ports which sent out untagged packets from the bridge to the target namespaces and received untagged packets from the namespaces (or container hosts).
  • The VLANs (e.g. VLAN1, VLAN2) were completely defined by PVID/VID definition at Linux bridge ports, only. We eliminated in addition default PVID/VID values. Thus, the VLANs were completely isolated from each other: No host/namespace of a VLAN1 could communicate with a host/namespace belonging to a different VLAN2.
  • Different Linux bridges (which could reside on different hosts) were connected by (virtual or real) cables between trunk ports or sub-interface ports; the cables connecting the bridges transferred packets with different tags. We used this to keep up the isolation of the VLANs against each other even when we extended the VLANs over multiple bridges.

The third point may be good in the sense of security in many applications – but it is also restrictive. The first deficit may be that at least some hosts in a VLAN2 should be able to reach a certain server in VLAN1. This problem can be solved by establishing routing, forwarding and packet filtering outside the bridge. But there may be other requirements ….

New challenges

More interesting may be configurations

  • where you need to set up some containers/namespaces as common members of two ore more VLANs
  • or in which you need to establish network namespaces for gathering network packets
    from different VLANs and organize a common communication with further networks via specific interfaces.

In future posts of this series, we, therefore, introduce additional network namespaces (representing LXC or Docker containers) to test examples for such configurations. These new namespaces should at least be able to communicate with member namespaces/hosts of different VLANs and transfer packets from multiple VLANs to other network namespaces or routers.

In the present post I walk through some basic considerations of such configurations. For this purpose we restrict the number of involved VLANs to 2 (VLAN1: green tags / VLAN2: pink tags). Each VLAN shall be represented by one example member network namespace (VLAN1: netns1 / VLAN2: netns2). In addition, we introduce a third network namespace netns3, which shall be connected to the VLANs and which should fulfill the following requirements:

  • Requirement 1: netns3 shall be able to receive packets from members of both VLANs and send packets to destination targets in both VLANs. I.e., netns3 must be able to communicate with member systems of both VLANs.
  • Requirement 2: netns3 shall, however, not become a packet forwarder between the VLANs; the VLANs shall remain separated despite the fact that they have a common communication partner netns3.

After all we have learned in this article series, we would, of course, try to establish the connection between members of VLAN1 (represented by netns1) and members of VLAN2 (netns2) to netns3 with the help of an intermediate network namespace netnsX. If required we would equip netnsX with a Linux bridge. Thus, the requirements lead to a typical

“3 point connection problem“:
Each of the VLANs is connected to netnX by 2 separate “connectors” (NICs or ports of a Linux bridge inside netnsX). A third “connector” attaches netns3 somehow. Schematically this is shown in the following graphics:

We associate VLAN1 with VLAN packet tags depicted in green color, VLAN2 with packets tags in pink. From “requirement 2” we conclude that we have to be careful with forwarding inside of BOTH netns3 AND netnsX.

Note:
We are not talking about reaching a member of VLAN2 from certain members of VLAN1. We shall touch this VLAN subject, too, but only as a side aspect. In the center of our analysis are instead network namespaces which can talk freely to members of two VLANs and which can receive and work with packets from two VLANs without destroying the communication isolation of members in VLAN1 against members in VLAN2.

What are real world applications for scenarios with network namespaces connected to two or more VLANs?

Two basic applications scenarios are the following:

  • A common administrative network namespace – or container host – for systems in both VLANs. This namespace/container shall operate without allowing for traffic between the VLANs.
  • A system which transfers packets from/to systems in both VLANs via a router to/from the external world or the Internet – without allowing for traffic between the VLANs.

The challenge is to find virtual network configurations for such scenarios. To make it a bit more challenging we assume that both VLANs are defined for systems of the same IP network class. (There is no requirement that limits different VLANs to different IP classes. A VLAN can cover several IP class networks; on the other side two different VLANs can each have members of the same IP class).

There are of course more application scenarios – but the two elementary ones named above cover most of the basic principles. We shall see that – depending on the solution approach – routing, packet filters and even forwarding must be addressed to realize the objectives of a certain scenario.

Ambiguities: Two different classes of packet transfer solutions

In netns3 we need to work with packets arriving from both VLANs. We also need to send back packets to destinations in both VLANs. But, there is a basic ambiguity related to the third connector and the connection line between netnsX and netns3. It is expressed by the following question:

Do we want to or can we afford to exchange tagged packets between netnsX and netns3?

This is not so trivial a question as it may seem to be! The answer depends on whether the network devices or applications inside netns3 know how to deal with and how to direct or transfer tagged packets.

In case we keep up VLAN tags until the inside of netns3 we must either provide a proper termination for the connection interface(s) or be able to pass tagged packets onward. If, however, netns3 does not know how to deal with tagged packets or if it makes no sense to keep up tagging we would rather send untagged packets from netnsX to netns3. One good reason why it may not make sense to keep up tagging could be that the tags would not survive a subsequent routing to the outside world anyway.

Thus we arrive at two rather different classes of connectivity solutions:

Let us first concentrate on termination solutions for tagged packets inside netns3 as depicted on the left side of the upper drawing:

As we have already seen in previous posts it is no problem to keep up tagging on the way from netns1 or netns2 to netns3. We know how to transfer tagged and untagged packets in and out of Linux bridges and thus we can be confident to find a suitable transfer solution based on a bridge inside netnsX. By the help of 2 sub-interfaces of e.g. a virtual veth device we could terminate the network transport properly inside netns3. So, it seems to be easy to make netns3 a member of both VLANs in this first class of connection approach. But, as we shall understand in a minute, we need a little more than just a bridge in netnsX and veth sub-interfaces to get a working configuration ….

A really different situations arises if we needed a configuration as presented on the right side of the graphics. The challenge there is not so much the creation of untagged packets going out of netnsX but the path of VLAN-ignorant packets coming in e.g. from the external world through netns3 and heading for members of either VLAN. Such packets must somehow then be directed to the right VLAN according to the IP address of the target. Such a targeting problem typically requires some kind of routing. So, on first sight a Linux bridge does not seem to be of much help in netnsX as there is no routing on a level 2 device! But, actually, we shall find that a Linux bridge in netnsX can lead to a working solution for untagged packets from/to netns3 – but such a solution comes with a prize.

Approaches with terminated VLAN connections in a common network namespace fit very well to the scenario of a common container host for the administration of systems in multiple VLANs. Solutions which instead use untagged packets entering and leaving netns3, instead fits very well to scenarios where multiple VLANs want to use a common connection (Ethernet card) or a common router to external networks.

Solutions which use packet tags and terminate VLAN traffic inside a common member of multiple VLANs

Let us assume that netns3 shall represent a host for the administration of netns1 in VLAN 1 (green) and netns2 in VLAN 2 (pink). Let us decide to keep up tagging all along the way from netns1 or netns2 to netns3. From the previous examples in this blog post series the following approaches for a netnsX-bridge-configuration look very plausible:

However, if you only configured the bridge, its ports and the veth devices properly and eventually tried pinging from netns1 to netns3 you would fail. (There are articles and questions on the Internet describing problems with such situations…). So, what is missing? The answer is as simple as it is instructive:

netns3 needs defined well routes to IPs residing in netns1 or netns2! Such routes would be different regarding the device to use for reaching IPs in netns1 in comparison to the device of routes leading to the IPs residing in netns2.

The requirement of defined routes in netns3 with multiple VLAN sub-devices

VLANs define a closed broadcast environment on TCP/IP network level 2. Why are broadcasts so important? Because we need a working ARP protocol to connect network layer 2 to layer 3. And ARP sends broadcast requests for the MAC address of a target, which has a given IP address AND which, hopefully, is a member of the same VLAN.

With a proper bridge port configuration an ARP request packet would travel all along from netns1 to netns3. But further? And what about ARP answer packets from netns3 itself? And what about ARP requests from netns3 regarding target IPs in either VLAN?

In netns3 we have just one IP for the veth end-point, but two related sub-devices … From the perspective of netns3 this makes the situation regarding the path (back) from netns3 to netns1 or netns2.

The situation of netns3 is a bit compatible with a host having two distinct NICs for different LAN segments. Even if proper routes were defined, only activated forwarding between the LAN segments attached to the router would allow packets to move from one segment to the other. However, in our situation, we would never activate forwarding in netns3 as we want to keep the VLANs separated. So, we assume that we have no problem with VLAN separation …

In addition VLANs mark separated areas of Ethernet broadcasts. After some recapitulation of ARP basics and the fact that ARP uses Ethernet broadcast packets for ARP requests we would assume that such packets will NOT move from one segment (here: VLAN with green tags) via netns3 into our second attached segment (here: VLAN with pink tags). Tagging would in addition surely prevent such a transfer.

This leads to the conclusion that ARP requests originating e.g. in netns1 would just reach netns3. But will they be answered if the request was for the IP of the veth end-point residing in netns3?

The big problem is that any answer will only be transported to the requesting namespace if the respective unicast packet gets the right tagging. But how should netns3 know which way to send the answer? Meaning: By what criterion should netns3 know which of the sub-devices to use to create a proper ARP reply packet? It cannot get the answer from an IP netmask – we have two sub-devices for one and the same IP!

Well an answer could be sent along the correct path if netns3 knew which IPs reside behind which of the two available veth sub-devices. This is exactly what defined routes in routing tables are good for!

This line of thought leads us to the suspicion that ARP requests coming from netns1 or netns3 either remain unanswered or that a reply requires defined routes. Also for sending an ARP request from netns3 to an IP in netns1, netns3 needs to know which veth-subdevice to use. I.e. netns3 definitively must know which IPs are located behind with veth-subdevice!

But (independent of ARP) the real challenge is the way back of ICMP answering packets from netns3 to netns2 or netns1. Such answering packets must reach their targets before we can be sure that any other communication on levels 3 and 4 will work properly between netns1 and netns3 or between netns2 and netns3. You should not forget that our namespaces in real world virtualization scenarios would represent Linux hosts and respective networking programs. But how can netns3 (or a respective host program) know where to direct ICMP answering packets to if and when there are two possible paths and devices avalable Without help it can not. Reason again: The IP network mask does not help!

So, the proper answer to our problems is:

We need to establish routes inside netns3 when we
     (1) want to keep up the separation of the VLANs up until to 2 different termination points inside netns3 (for one IP),
     (2) but nevertheless want to include netns3-based packets in the direction of netns1 OR netns2 in the communication.
The routes for packets going out from netns3 to either netns1 or netns2 must assign IP-targets located in each of the VLANs to one of the 2 network interfaces (termination points) inside netns3 in a unique way.

Note in addition:
Whenever the different VLANs have members with an IP of one and the same IP class, then you may have to differentiate routes in the sense of a “host IP <=> NIC-interface” relation, instead of the usual relation “network class <=> interface”. Often enough people forget this specific type of routing …

Regarding our special situation such routes must be defined for all members of each VLAN. I shall give examples for corresponding commands in my next blog post of this series.

I am not going to clarify open ARP-related questions which arise for netns3 in this post. One should not forget regarding ARP that PROXY ARP could be activated in netns3. This increases complexity. I am going to investigate the behavior of ARP packets in more detail for namespaces in a routing position between LAN segments via respective experiments in some other posts. For first insights see e.g.

More fun with veth, network namespaces, VLANs – III – L2-segments of the same IP-subnet and routes in coupling network namespaces

More fun with veth, network namespaces, VLANs – IV – L2-segments, same IP-subnet, ARP and routes

Forwarding?

As we talk of routing: Do we need forwarding, too? Answer: No, not as long as netns3 is the final target or the origin of packet transport in a given application scenario. Why is this important? Because routing between interfaces connected to bridge ports of different VLANs would establish a communication connection between otherwise separated VLANs.

To enable packets to cross VLAN borders we either have to destroy the separation already on a bridge port level OR we must allow for routing and forwarding between NICs which are located outside the bridge but which are connected to ports of the bridge. E.g., let us assume that the sub-interfaces in netns3 are named veth33.10 (VLAN1 termination) and veth33.20 (VLAN2 termination). If we had not just set up routes like

route add 192.168.5.1 veth33.10
route add 192.168.5.4 veth33.20

but in addition had enabled forwarding with

echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/all/forwarding

inside netns3 we would have established a communication line between our two VLANs. Fortunately, in many cases, forwarding is not required in a common member of two VLANs. Most often only route definitions are necessary. In particular, we can set up a host which must perform administrative tasks in both VLANs without creating an open communication line between the VLANs. However, we would have to trust the administrator of netns3 not to enable forwarding. Personally, I would not rely on this; it is more secure to establish port and IP related packet filtering on the bridge inside netnsX. Especially rules in the sense:

Only packets for a certain IP address are allowed to leave the Linux bridge (which establishes the VLANs) across a certain egress port to a certain VLAN member.

Such rules for bridge ports can be set up e-g- with special iptables commands for bridged packets.

Intermediate conclusions for solutions with VLAN termination in a common network namespace

We summarize the results of our theoretical discussion for the first class of solutions:

  • VLAN termination inside a network namespace (or container host), which shall become a common member of several VLANs, can easily be achieved with sub-interfaces of a veth device. The other interface of the veth pair can be attached by sub-interfaces OR as a pure trunk port to a Linux bridge which is connected to the different VLANs or which establishes the VLANs itself by proper port configurations.
  • If we terminate VLANs inside a network namespace or container host, which shall become a member of two or more VLANs, then we need to define proper routes to IP targets behind each of the different VLAN related interfaces. However, we do NOT need to enable forwarding in this namespace or container host.

A three point netnX solution without packet tagging, but with forwarding to a common target network namespace

Now, let us consider solutions of the second class indicated above. If you think about it a bit you may come up with the following basic and simple approach regarding netnsX and netns3:

This solution is solid in the sense that it works on network level 3 and that it makes use of standard routing and forwarding. The required VLAN tagging at each of the lower connection points in netnsX can be achieved by a properly configured sub-interface of a veth device interface. We do not employ any bridge services in netnsX in this approach; packet distribution to VLAN members must be handled in other network namespaces behind the VLAN connection points in netnsX. (We know already how to do this …).

This simple solution, however, has its prize:

We need to enable forwarding for the transfer of packets from the VLAN connection interfaces (attaching e.g. netns1 and netns2 to netnsX) to the the interface attaching netns3 to netnsX. But, unfortunately, this creates a communication line between VLAN1 and VLAN2, too! To compensate for this we must set up a packet filter, with rules disallowing packets to travel between the VLAN connection points inside netnsX. Furthermore, packets coming via/from netns3 shall only be allowed to pass through exactly one of the lower VLAN interfaces in netnsX if and when the target IP fits to a membership in the VLAN behind the NIC.

There is, by the way a second prize, we have to pay in such a router like solution for the connection of VLANs to an outside world without tags:

Level 3 routing costs a bit more computational time than packet transport on level 2.

But, if you (for whatever reason) only can provide one working Ethernet interface to the outside world, it is a small prize to pay!

Intermediate result:

An intermediate virtual network namespace (or virtual host) netnsX with conventional routing/forwarding AND appropriate packet filter rules on a firewall can be used to control the communication of members of two or more VLANs to the outside world via a third (common) interface attached to netnsX. We do not need to care for VLAN tags beyond this third interface as VLAN tags do not survive forwarding. Further routing, forwarding and required NAT configurations with respect to the Internet can afterward be done inside yet another virtual namespace “netns3” (with a bridge and an attached real Ethernet card) or even beyond netns3 in an external physical router.

A three point netnX solution without packet tagging – but based on a Linux bridge

Now, let us consider how a Linux bridge in netnsX could transfer packets even if we do not tag packets on their way between the bridge and netns3. I.e., if we want connect two VLANs to a VLAN-ignorant network namespace netns3 and a VLAN indifferent world beyond netns3. What is the problem with a configuration as indicated on the right side of the picture on different solution classes?

A port to netns3 which shall emit untagged packets from a VLAN-aware Linux bridge must be configured such

  • that it accepts tagged packets from both VLAN1 and VLAN2 on egress; i.e. we must apply two VID settings (for green and pink tagged pakets).
  • that it sends out packets on egress untagged; i.e. we must configure the port with the flag “untagged”.

But VID settings also filter and drop incoming “ingress” packets at a port! E.g. untagged packets from netns3 are dropped on their way into the Linux bridge. See the post Fun with … – IV for related rules on Linux bridge ports. This is a major problem:

Firstly, because we cannot send any ARP broadcast requests from netns3 to netns1 or netns2. And, equally bad, netns3 cannot answer to any ARP requests which it may receive from members of VLAN1 or VLAN2:

ARP broadcast requests from e.g. netns1 will pass the bridge port to netns3 and arrive there untagged. However, untagged ARP answer packets will not be allowed to enter the bridge at the port for netns3 because they do not fit to the VID settings at this port.

But, can’t we use PVID settings? Hmm, remember: Only one PVID setting is allowed at a port! But in our case ARP broadcast and answering packets must be able to reach members of both VLANs! Are we stuck, then? No, a working solution is the following:

In the drawing above we have indicated PVID settings by squares with dotted, colored borders and VID settings by squares with solid borders. The configuration may look strange, but it eliminates the obstacles for ARP packet exchange! And it allows for packet transfer from netns3 to both VLANs.

Actually, the “blue” PVID/VID setting reflects the default PVID/VID settings (VID=1; PVID=1) which come up whenever we create a port in VLAN-aware bridge! Up to now, we have always deleted these default values to guarantee a complete VLAN isolation; but you may already have wondered why this default setting takes place at all. Now, you got a reason.

If you, in addition, take into account that a Linux bridge learns about port-MAC relations and that it – under normal conditions – forwards or filters packets during bridge internal forwarding between ports

  • according to MAC addresses located behind a port
  • AND tags matching VID values at a port,

you may rightfully assume that packets cannot move from VLAN1 to VLAN2 or vice versa under normal operation conditions. We shall test this in an example scenario in one of the coming blog posts.

HOWEVER ….virtual networks with level 2 bridges are endangered areas. The PVID/VID settings of our present bridge based approach weaken the separation between the VLANs significantly.

Security aspects

For all configurations discussed above, we must be careful with netns3: netns3 is in an excellent position to potentially transfer packets between VLAN1 and VLAN2 – either by direct forwarding/routing in some of the above scenarios or by capturing, manipulating and re-directing packets. Secondly, netns3 is in an excellent position for man-in-the-middle-attacks

  • regarding traffic between members of either VLAN
  • or regarding traffic between the VLANs and the outside world beyond netns3.

netns3 can capture, manipulate and redirect any packets passing it. As administrators we should, therefore, have full control over netns3.

In addition: If you ever worked on defense measures against bridge related attack vectors you know

  • that a Linux bridge can be forced into a HUB mode if flooded with wrong or disagreeing MAC information.
  • that man-in-the-middle-attacks are possible by flooding hosts attached to bridges with wrong MAC-IP-information; this leads to manipulated ARP tables at the attacked targets.

These points lead to potential risks especially in the last bridge based solution to our three point problem. Reason: The “blue” PVID/VID settings there eliminate the previously strict separation of the two VLANs for packets which come from netns3 and enter the bridge at a related port. We rely completely on correct entries in the bridge’s MAC/port relation table for a safe VLAN separation.

But the bridge could be manipulated from any of the attached container hosts into a HUB mode. This in turn would e.g. allow a member of VLAN1 to see (e.g. answering) packets, which arrive from netns3 (or an origin located beyond netns3) and which are targeted to a member of VLAN2. Such packets may carry enough information for opening other attack vectors.

So, a fundamental conclusion of our discussion is the following:

It is essential that you apply packet filter rules on bridge based solutions that hinder packets to reach targets (containers) with the wrong IP/MAC-relation at egress ports! Such rules can be applied to bridge ports by the various means of Linux netfilter tools.

On a host level this may be a task which becomes relatively difficult if you apply flexible DHCP-based IP assignments to members of the VLANs.
But, if you need to choose between flexibility and full control about which attached namespace/container gets which IP (and MAC) and your virtual networks are not too big : go for control – e.g via setup scripts.

Summary and outlook

Theoretically, there are several possibilities to establish virtual communication lines from a network namespace or container to members of multiple virtual VLANs. Solutions with tagged packet transfer require a proper termination inside the common member namespace and the definition of routes. As long as we do not enable forwarding outside the VLAN establishing Linux bridge the VLANs remain separated. Solutions where packets are transferred untagged from the VLANs to a target network namespace require special PVID/VID settings at the bridge port to enable a bidirectional communication. These settings weaken the VLAN separation and underline the importance of packet filter rules on the Linux bridge and for the various bridge ports.

In the next post of this series

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

we will look at commands for setting up a test environment for 2 VLANs with a common communication target. And we will test the considerations discussed above.

In the meantime : Happy New Year – and stay tuned for more adventures with Linux, Linux virtual bridges and network namespaces …

 

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

Posted on by

In the previous posts of this series

  1. Fun with veth-devices, Linux bridges and VLANs in unnamed Linux network namespaces – I
  2. Fun with veth-devices, Linux bridges and VLANs in unnamed Linux network namespaces – II
  3. Fun with veth-devices, Linux bridges and VLANs in unnamed Linux network namespaces – III
  4. Fun with veth-devices, Linux bridges and VLANs in unnamed Linux network namespaces – IV

we laid the foundations for working with VLANs in virtual networks between different network namespaces – or containers, if you like.

In the last post (4) I provided rules and commands for establishing VLANs via the configuration of a virtual Linux bridge. We saw how we define VLANs and set VLAN IDs, e.g. with the help of sub-interfaces of veth pairs or at Linux bridge ports (VIDs, PVID).

We apply this knowledge now to build the network environment for an experiment 4, which we described already in the second post:

The objective of this experiment 4 is the setup of two separated virtual VLANs for 2 groups of 4 network namespaces (or containers) with the help of a Linux bridge in a separate fifth network namespace.

In VLANs packet transport is controlled on the link layer and not on the network layer of the TCP/IP protocol. An interesting question for all coming experiments will be, where and how the tagging of the Ethernet packets must occur. Experiment 4 will show that a virtual Linux bridge has a lot in common with real switches – and that in simple cases the bridge configuration alone can define the required VLANs.

Note that we will not use any firewall rules to achieve the separation of the network traffic! However, be aware of the fact that the prevention of ARP spoofing even in our simple scenario requires packet filtering (e.g. by netfilter iptables/ebtables rules).

Experiment 4

The experiment is illustrated in the upper left corner of the graphics below; we configure the area surrounded by the blue dotted line:

You recognize the drawing of our virtual test environment (discussed in the article 2). We set up (unnamed) network namespaces netns1, netns2, netns4, netns5 and of course netns3 with the help of commands discussed in article 1. Remember: The “names” netnx, actually, are hostnames! netns3 contains our bridge “brx“.

VLAN IDs and VLAN tags are numbers. But for visualization purposes you can imagine that we give Ethernet packets that shall be exchanged between netns1 and netns2 a green tag and packets which travel between netns4 and netns5 a pink tag. The small red line between the respective ports inside the bridge represents the separation of our two groups of network namespaces (or containers) via 2 VLANs. For the meaning of other colors around some plug symbols see the text below.

For connectivity tests we need to watch packets of the ARP (address
resolution) protocol and the propagation of ICMP packets. tcpdump will help us to identify such packets at selected interfaces.

Connect 4 network namespaces with the help of a (virtual) Linux bridge in a fifth namespace

As in our previous experiments (see post 2) we enter the following list of commands at a shell prompt. (You may just copy/paste them). The list is a bit lengthy, so you may have to scroll: 

# set up namespaces 
unshare --net --uts /bin/bash &
export pid_netns1=$!
nsenter -t $pid_netns1 -u hostname netns1
unshare --net --uts /bin/bash &
export pid_netns2=$!
unshare --net --uts /bin/bash &
export pid_netns3=$!
unshare --net --uts /bin/bash &
export pid_netns4=$!
unshare --net --uts /bin/bash &
export pid_netns5=$!

# assign different hostnames  
nsenter -t $pid_netns1 -u hostname netns1
nsenter -t $pid_netns2 -u hostname netns2
nsenter -t $pid_netns3 -u hostname netns3
nsenter -t $pid_netns4 -u hostname netns4
nsenter -t $pid_netns5 -u hostname netns5

#set up veth devices 
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
ip link add veth44 netns $pid_netns4 type veth peer name veth43 netns $pid_netns3
ip link add veth55 netns $pid_netns5 type veth peer name veth53 netns $pid_netns3

# Assign IP addresses and set the devices up 
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
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 link set lo up
exit
nsenter -t $pid_netns4 -u -n /bin/bash
ip addr add 192.168.5.4/24 brd 192.168.5.255 dev veth44
ip link set veth44 up
ip link set lo up
exit
nsenter -t $pid_netns5 -u -n /bin/bash
ip addr add 192.168.5.5/24 brd 192.168.5.255 dev veth55
ip link set veth55 up
ip link set lo up
exit

# set up the bridge 
nsenter -t $pid_netns3 -u -n /bin/bash
brctl addbr brx  
ip link set brx up
ip link set veth13 up
ip link set veth23 up
ip link set veth43 up
ip link set veth53 up
brctl addif brx veth13
brctl addif brx veth23
brctl addif brx veth43
brctl addif brx veth53
exit

lsns -t net -t uts

We expect that we can ping from each namespace to all the others. We open a subshell window (see the third post of the series), enter namespace netns5 there and ping e.g. netns2:

mytux:~ # nsenter -t $pid_netns5 -u -n /bin/bash
netns5:~ # 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=0.031 ms   
64 bytes from 192.168.5.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.029 ms   

--- 192.168.5.2 ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 999ms                                        
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.029/0.030/0.031/0.001 ms

So far so good.

Create and isolate two VLANs for two groups of network namespaces (or containers) via proper port configuration of a Linux bridge

We have not set up the ports of our bridge, yet, to handle different VLANs. A look into the rules discussed in the last post provides the necessary information, and we execute the following commands: 

# set up 2 VLANs  
nsenter -t $pid_netns3 -u -n /bin/bash
ip link set dev brx type bridge vlan_filtering 1
bridge vlan add vid 10 pvid untagged dev veth13
bridge vlan add vid 10 pvid untagged dev veth23
bridge vlan add vid 20 pvid 
untagged dev veth43
bridge vlan add vid 20 pvid untagged dev veth53
bridge vlan del vid 1 dev brx self
bridge vlan del vid 1 dev veth13
bridge vlan del vid 1 dev veth23
bridge vlan del vid 1 dev veth43
bridge vlan del vid 1 dev veth53
bridge vlan show 
exit

Note:

For working on the bridge’s Ethernet interface itself we need the “self” string.

Question: Where must and will VLAN tags be attached to network packets – inside or/and outside the bridge?
Answer: In our present scenario inside the bridge, only.

This is consistent with using the option “untagged” at all ports: Outside the bridge there are only untagged Ethernet packets.

The command “bridge VLAN show” gives us an overview over our VLAN settings and the corresponding port configuration: 

netns3:~ # bridge vlan show
port    vlan ids
veth13   10 PVID Egress Untagged   

veth23   10 PVID Egress Untagged

veth43   20 PVID Egress Untagged

veth53   20 PVID Egress Untagged

brx     None
netns3:~ #

In our setup VID 10 corresponds to the “green” VLAN and VID 20 to the “pink” one.

Please note that there is absolutely no requirement to give the bridge itself an IP address or to define VLAN sub-interfaces of the bridge’s own Ethernet interface. Treating and configuring the bridge itself as an Ethernet device may appear convenient and is a standard background operation of many applications, which configure bridges. E.g. of virt-manager. But in my opinion such an implicit configuration only leads to unclear and potentially dangerous situations for packet filtering. A bridge with an IP gets an additional and special, but fully operational interface to its environment (here to its network namespace) – besides the “normal” ports to clients. It is easy to forget this special interface. Actually, it even gets a default PVID and VID (value 1) assigned. But I delete these VID/PVID almost always to avoid any traffic at the bridges default interface. Personally, I use a bridge very, very seldom as an Ethernet device with an IP address. If I need a connection to the surrounding network namespace I use a veth device, instead. Then we have an explicitly defined port. In our experiment 4 such a connection is not required.

Testing the VLANs

Now we open 2 sub shell windows for entering our namespaces (in KDE e.g. by “konsole &>/dev/null &”).

First we watch traffic from 192.168.5.1 through veth43 in netns3 in one of our shells: 

mytux:~ # nsenter -t $pid_netns4 -u -n /bin/bash
netns3:~ # tcpdump -n -i veth43  host 192.168.5.1 -e
tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode  
listening on veth43, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 262144 bytes

Then we open another shell and try to ping netns4 from netns1 : 

mytux:~ # nsenter -t $pid_netns1 -u -n /bin/bash 
netns1:~ # ping 192.168.5.4
PING 192.168.5.4 (192.168.5.4) 56(84) bytes of data.
^C
--- 192.168.5.4 ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 1007ms

Nothing happens at veth43 in netns3! This was to be expected as our VLAN for VID 10, of course, is isolated from VLAN with VID 20.

However, if we watch traffic on veth23 in netns3 and ping in parallel for netns2 and later for netns4 from netns1, we get (inside netns1): 

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=0.090 ms  
64 bytes from 192.168.5.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.064 ms
^C
--- 192.168.5.2 ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1000ms   
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.064/0.077/0.090/0.013 ms
nnetns1:~ # ^C
netns1:~ # ping 192.168.5.4
PING 192.168.5.4 (192.168.5.4) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 192.168.5.1 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable  
From 192.168.5.1 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.5.1 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable
^C
--- 192.168.5.4 ping statistics ---
6 packets transmitted, 0 received, +3 errors, 100% packet loss, time 5031ms                          
pipe 3

At the same time in netns3: 

netns3:~ # tcpdump -n -i veth23  host 192.168.5.1 -e
tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
listening on veth23, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 262144 bytes
16:13:59.748075 f2:3d:63:de:a8:41 > 6e:12:2e:cf:c1:25, ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 98: 192.168.5.1 > 192.168.5.2: ICMP echo request, id 29195, seq 1, length 64    
16:13:59.748106 6e:12:2e:cf:c1:25 > f2:3d:63:de:a8:41, ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 98: 192.168.5.2 > 192.168.5.1: ICMP echo reply, id 29195, seq 1, length 64
16:14:00.748326 f2:3d:63:de:a8:41 > 6e:12:2e:cf:c1:25, ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 98: 192.168.5.1 > 192.168.5.2: ICMP echo request, id 29195, seq 2, length 64   
16:14:00.748337 6e:12:2e:cf:c1:25 > f2:3d:63:de:a8:41, ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 98: 192.168.5.2 > 192.168.5.1: ICMP echo reply, id 29195, seq 2, length 64
16:16:48.630614 f2:3d:63:de:a8:41 > ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, ethertype ARP (0x0806), length 42: Request who-has 192.168.5.4 tell 192.168.5.1, length 28
16:16:49.628213 f2:3d:63:de:a8:41 > ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, ethertype ARP (0x0806), length 42: Request who-has 192.168.5.4 tell 192.168.5.1, length 28
16:16:50.628220 f2:3d:63:de:a8:41 > ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, ethertype ARP (0x0806), length 42: Request who-has 192.168.5.4 tell 192.168.5.1, length 28
16:16:51.645477 f2:3d:63:de:a8:41 > ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, ethertype ARP (0x0806), length 42: Request who-has 192.168.5.4 tell 192.168.5.1, length 28
16:16:52.644229 f2:3d:63:de:a8:41 > ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, ethertype ARP (0x0806), length 42: Request who-has 192.168.5.4 tell 192.168.5.1, length 28
16:16:53.644171 f2:3d:63:de:a8:41 > ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, ethertype ARP (0x0806), length 42: Request who-has 192.168.5.4 tell 192.168.5.1, length 28
^C
10 packets captured
10 packets received by filter
0 packets dropped by kernel

You may test the other communication channels in the same way. Obviously, we have succeeded in isolating a “green” communication area from a “pink” one! On the link layer level – i.e. despite the fact that all members of both VLANs belong to the same IP network class!

Note that even a user on the host can not see the traffic inside the two VLANs directly; he/she does not even see the network interfaces with “ip a s” as they all are located in network namespaces different from its own …

VLAN tags on packets outside the bridge?

Just for fun (and for the preparation of coming experiments) we want to try and assign a “brown” tag to packets outside the bridge, namely those moving along the veth connection line to netns2.

On real Ethernet devices you need to define sub-devices to achieve a VLAN tagging. Actually, this works with veth interfaces, too! With the following command list we extend each of our interfaces veth22 and veth23 by a sub-interface. We assign the IP address 192.168.5.2 afterwards to the sub-interface veth22.50 of veth22 (instead of veth22 itself). Instead of veth23 we then plug its new sub-interface into our virtual bridge to terminate the connection correctly.

# Replace veth22, veth23 with sub-interfaces 
nsenter -t $pid_netns3 -u -n /bin/bash
brctl delif brx veth23
ip link add link veth23 name veth23.50 type vlan id 50  
ip link set veth23.50 up
brctl addif brx veth23.50 
exit 
nsenter -t $pid_netns2 -u -n /bin/bash
ip addr del 192.168.5.2/24 brd 192.168.5.255 dev veth22
ip link 
add link veth22 name veth22.50 type vlan id 50
ip addr add 192.168.5.2/24 brd 192.168.5.255 dev veth22.50    
ip link set veth22.50 up
bridge vlan add vid 10 pvid untagged dev veth23.50
bridge vlan del vid 1 dev veth23.50
exit

The PVID/VID-setting is done for the new sub-interface “veth23.50” on the bridge! Note that the “green” VID 10 inside the bridge is different from the VLAN ID 50, which is used outside the bridge (“brown” tags). According to the rules presented in the last article this should not have any impact on our VLANs:

Tags of incoming packets entering the bridge via veth23 are removed and replaced the green tag (10) before forwarding occurs inside the bridge. Outgoing packets first get their green tag removed due to the fact that we have marked the port with the flag “untagged”. But on the outside of the bridge the veth sub-interface re-marks the packets with the “brown” tag.

We ping netns2 

netns1:~ # ping 192.168.5.2 -c3
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=0.099 ms  
64 bytes from 192.168.5.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.055 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.5.2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.094 ms

--- 192.168.5.2 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1998ms   
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.055/0.082/0.099/0.022 ms
netns1:~ #

and capture the respective packets at “veth23” with tcpdump: 

netns3:~ # bridge vlan show
port    vlan ids
veth13   10 PVID Egress Untagged

veth43   20 PVID Egress Untagged

veth53   20 PVID Egress Untagged

brx     None
veth23.50        10 PVID Egress Untagged

netns3:~ # tcpdump -n -i veth23  host 192.168.5.1 -e
tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
listening on veth23, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 262144 bytes         
17:38:55.962118 f2:3d:63:de:a8:41 > 6e:12:2e:cf:c1:25, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 102: vlan 50, p 0, ethertype IPv4, 192.168.5.1 > 192.168.5.2: ICMP echo request, id 1772, seq 1, length 64   
17:38:55.962155 6e:12:2e:cf:c1:25 > f2:3d:63:de:a8:41, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 102: vlan 50, p 0, ethertype IPv4, 192.168.5.2 > 192.168.5.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1772, seq 1, length 64
17:38:56.961095 f2:3d:63:de:a8:41 > 6e:12:2e:cf:c1:25, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 102: vlan 50, p 0, ethertype IPv4, 192.168.5.1 > 192.168.5.2: ICMP echo request, id 1772, seq 2, length 64
17:38:56.961116 6e:12:2e:cf:c1:25 > f2:3d:63:de:a8:41, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 102: vlan 50, p 0, ethertype IPv4, 192.168.5.2 > 192.168.5.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1772, seq 2, length 64
17:38:57.960293 f2:3d:63:de:a8:41 > 6e:12:2e:cf:c1:25, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 102: vlan 50, p 0, ethertype IPv4, 192.168.5.1 > 192.168.5.2: ICMP echo request, id 1772, seq 3, length 64   
17:38:57.960328 6e:12:2e:cf:c1:25 > f2:3d:63:de:a8:41, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 102: vlan 50, p 0, ethertype IPv4, 192.168.5.2 > 192.168.5.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1772, seq 3, length 64
17:39:00.976243 6e:12:2e:cf:c1:25 > f2:3d:63:de:a8:41, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 46: vlan 50, p 0, ethertype ARP, Request who-has 192.168.5.1 tell 192.168.5.2, length 28
17:39:00.976278 f2:3d:63:de:a8:41 > 6e:12:2e:cf:c1:25, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 46: vlan 50, p 0, ethertype ARP, Reply 192.168.5.1 is-at f2:3d:63:de:a8:41, length 28

Note the information ” ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 46: vlan 50″ which proves the tagging with 50 outside the bridge.

Note further that we needed to capture on device veth23 – on device veth23.50 we do not see the tagging: 

netns3:~ # tcpdump -n -i veth23.50  host 192.168.5.1 -e
tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
listening on veth23.50, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 
262144 bytes
17:45:29.015840 f2:3d:63:de:a8:41 > 6e:12:2e:cf:c1:25, ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 98: 192.168.5.1 > 192.168.5.2: ICMP echo request, id 2222, seq 1, length 64   
17:45:29.015875 6e:12:2e:cf:c1:25 > f2:3d:63:de:a8:41, ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 98: 192.168.5.2 > 192.168.5.1: ICMP echo reply, id 2222, seq 1, length 64

Can we see the tagging inside the bridge? Yes, we can: 

netns3:~ # tcpdump -n -i brx  host 192.168.5.1 -e
tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
listening on brx, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 262144 bytes
17:51:41.563316 f2:3d:63:de:a8:41 > 6e:12:2e:cf:c1:25, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 102: vlan 10, p 0, ethertype IPv4, 192.168.5.1 > 192.168.5.2: ICMP echo request, id 2535, seq 1, length 64   
17:51:41.563343 6e:12:2e:cf:c1:25 > f2:3d:63:de:a8:41, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 102: vlan 10, p 0, ethertype IPv4, 192.168.5.2 > 192.168.5.1: ICMP echo reply, id 2535, seq 1, length 64
17:51:42.562333 f2:3d:63:de:a8:41 > 6e:12:2e:cf:c1:25, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 102: vlan 10, p 0, ethertype IPv4, 192.168.5.1 > 192.168.5.2: ICMP echo request, id 2535, seq 2, length 64
17:51:42.562387 6e:12:2e:cf:c1:25 > f2:3d:63:de:a8:41, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 102: vlan 10, p 0, ethertype IPv4, 192.168.5.2 > 192.168.5.1: ICMP echo reply, id 2535, seq 2, length 64
17:51:43.561327 f2:3d:63:de:a8:41 > 6e:12:2e:cf:c1:25, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 102: vlan 10, p 0, ethertype IPv4, 192.168.5.1 > 192.168.5.2: ICMP echo request, id 2535, seq 3, length 64   
17:51:43.561367 6e:12:2e:cf:c1:25 > f2:3d:63:de:a8:41, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 102: vlan 10, p 0, ethertype IPv4, 192.168.5.2 > 192.168.5.1: ICMP echo reply, id 2535, seq 3, length 64
17:51:46.576259 6e:12:2e:cf:c1:25 > f2:3d:63:de:a8:41, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 46: vlan 10, p 0, ethertype ARP, Request who-has 192.168.5.1 tell 192.168.5.2, length 28
17:51:46.576276 f2:3d:63:de:a8:41 > 6e:12:2e:cf:c1:25, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 46: vlan 10, p 0, ethertype ARP, Reply 192.168.5.1 is-at f2:3d:63:de:a8:41, length 28
^C

Note: “ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 46: vlan 10”. Inside the bridge we have the tag 10 – as expected. In our setup the external VLAN tagging is irrelevant!

The separation of communication paths between different ports inside of the bridge can be controlled by the bridge setup alone – independent of any VLAN packet tagging, which may occur outside the bridge!

This enhances security: VLAN tags can be manipulated outside the bridge. But as such tags get stripped when packets enter the bridge via ports based on veth sub-interfaces, this won’t help an attacker so much …. :-).

For certain purposes we can (and will) use VLAN tagging also along certain connections outside the bridge – but the control and isolation of network paths between containers on one and the same virtualization host normally does not require VLAN tagging outside a bridge. The big exception is of course when routing to the outside world is required. But this is the topic of later blog posts.

If you like, you can now test that one can not ping e.g. netns5 from netns2. This will not be possible as inside the bridge packets from netns2 get tags for the VLAN ID 10 as we have seen – and neither the port based on veth43 nor the port for veth53 will allow any such packets to pass.

VLANs support security, but traffic separation alone is not sufficient. Some spoofing attack vectors would try to flood the bridge with wrong information about MACs. The dynamic learning of a port-MAC relation then becomes a disadvantage. One may think that the bridges’s internal tagging would nevertheless block a packet misdirection to the wrong VLAN. However, the real behavior may depend on details of the bridges’s handling of the protocol stacks and the point when tagging occurs. I do not understand enough, yet, about this. So, better work proactively:
There are parameters by which you can make the port-MAC relations almost static. Use them and implement netfilter rules in addition! You need such rules anyway to avoid ARP spoofing within each VLAN.

Traffic between VLANs?

If you for some reasons need to allow for traffic between you have to establish routing outside the bridge and limit the type of traffic allowed by packet filter rules. A typical scenario would be that some clients in one VLAN need access to services (special TCP ports) of a container in a network namespace attached to another VLAN. I do not follow this road here, yet, because right now I am more interested in isolation. But see the following links for examples of routing between VLANs :
https://serverfault.com/ questions/ 779115/ forward-traffic-between-vlans-with-iptables
https://www.riccardoriva.info/blog/?p=35

Conclusion

Obviously, we can use a virtual Linux bridge in a separate network namespace to isolate communication paths between groups of other network namespaces against each other. This can be achieved by making the bridge VLAN aware and by setting proper VIDs, PVIDs on the bridge ports of veth interfaces. Multiple VLANs can thus be establish by just one bride. We have shown that the separation works even if all members of both VLANs belong to the same IP network class.

We did not involve the bridge’s own Ethernet interface and we did not need any packet tagging outside the bridge to achieve our objective. In our case it was not necessary to define sub-interfaces on either side of our veth connections. But even if we had used sub-interfaces and tagging outside the bridge it would not have destroyed the operation of our VLANs. The bridge itself establishes the VLANs; thinking virtual VLANs means thinking virtual bridges/switches – at least since kernel 3.9!

If we associated the four namespaces with 4 LXC containers our experiment 4 would correspond to a typical scenario for virtual networking on a host, whose containers are arranged in groups. Only members of a group are allowed to communicate with each other. How about extending such a grouping of namespaces/containers to another host? We shall simulate such a situation in the next blog post …

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

Stay tuned !