passing-through TOS/DSCP marking
daniel at makrotopia.org
Mon Jul 5 17:26:32 UTC 2021
On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 06:59:10PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Daniel Golle <daniel at makrotopia.org> writes:
> > ...
> >> The only potential operational issue with using it on multiple wg
> >> interfaces is if they share IP space; because in that case you might
> >> have packets from different tunnels ending up with identical hashes,
> >> confusing the egress side. Fixing this would require the outer BPF
> >> program to know about wg endpoint addresses and map the packets back to
> >> their inner ifindexes using that. But as long as the wireguard tunnels
> >> are using different IP subnets (or mostly forwarding traffic without the
> >> inner addresses as sources or destinations), the hash collision
> >> probability should not be bigger than just traffic on a single tunnel, I
> >> suppose.
> >> One particular thing to watch out for here is IPv6 link-local traffic;
> >> sine wg doesn't generate link-local addresses automatically, they are
> >> commonly configured with (the same) static address (like fe80::1 or
> >> fe80::2), which would make link-local traffic identical across wg
> >> interfaces. But this is only used for particular setups (I use it for
> >> running Babel over wg, for instance), just make sure it won't be an
> >> issue for your deployment scenario :)
> > All this is good to know, but from what I can see now shouldn't be
> > a problem in our deployment -- it's multiple wireguard links which are
> > (using fwmark and ip rules) routed over several uplinks. We then use
> > mwan3 to balance most of the gateway traffic accross the available
> > wireguard interfaces, using MASQ/SNAT on each tunnel which has a
> > unique transfer network assigned, and no IPv6 at all.
> > Hence it should be ok to go under the restrictions you described.
> Alright, so the wireguard-to-physical interfaces is always many-to-one?
> I.e., each wireguard interface is always routed out the same physical
> interface, but there may be multiple wg interfaces sharing the same
Well, on the access concentrator in the datacentre this is the case:
All wireguard tunnels are using the same interface.
On the remote system there are *many* tunnels to the same access
concentrator, each routed over a different uplink interface.
So there it's a 1:1 mapping, each wgX has it's distinct ethX.
(and there the current solution already works fine)
> I'm asking because in that case it does make sense to keep separate
> instances of the whole setup per physical interface to limit hash
> collisions; otherwise, the lookup table could also be made global and
> shared between all physical interfaces, so you'd avoid having to specify
> the relationship explicitly...
> >> > * Once a wireguard interface goes down, one cannot unload the
> >> > remaining program on the upstream interface, as
> >> > preserve-dscp wg0 eth0 --unload
> >> > would fail in case of 'wg0' having gone missing.
> >> > What do you suggest to do in this case?
> >> Just fixing the userspace utility to deal with this case properly as
> >> well is probably the easiest. How are you thinking you'd deploy this?
> >> Via ifup hooks on openwrt, or something different?
> > Yes, I use ifup hooks configured in an init script for procd and have
> > it tied to the wireguard config sections in /etc/config/network:
> > https://git.openwrt.org/?p=openwrt/staging/dangole.git;a=blob;f=package/network/utils/bpf-examples/files/wireguard-preserve-dscp.init;h=f1e5e25e663308e057285e2bd8e3bcb9560bdd54;hb=5923a78d74be3f05e734b0be0a832a87be8d369b#l56
> > Passing multiple inner interfaces to one call to the to-be-modified
> > preserve-dscp tool could be achieved by some shell magic dealing with
> > the configuration...
> Not necessary: it's perfectly fine to attach them one at a time.
So assume we changed the userspace tool to accept multiple inner
interfaces, let's say we called:
preserve-dscp wg0 wg1 wg2 eth0
And then, at some later point in time we want to add 'wg3'.
preserve-dscp wg0 wg1 wg2 wg3 eth0
could just work without interrupting ongoing service on wg0..wg2?
That would definitely require the userspace tool to track some local
state and store it in /var/lib/foo/...? Or am I getting something
> > We will have to restart the filter for all inner interfaces in case of
> > one being added or removed, right?
> Nope, that's no necessary either. We can just re-attach the same filter
> program to each additional interface.
So given the above example, I could then just call
preserve-dscp wg3 eth0
to add eth3 while wg0..wg2 keep working?
> > And maybe I'll come up with some state tracking so orphaned filters can
> > be removed after configuration changes...
> The userspace loader could be made to detect this and automatically
> clean up the program on the physical interface after the last internal
> interface goes away. At least as long as we can rely on an ifdown hook
> this will be fairly straight-forward (just requires a lock to not be
> racy). Detecting it after interfaces are automatically removed from the
> kernel is a bit more cumbersome as it would require some way to trigger
> the garbage collection.
I'll look into that and how we are intending to handle that in
general in OpenWrt. John was working on that I believe, I'll ask him
More information about the WireGuard