Conversation
…ring format"" This reverts commit 53fef54. Signed-off-by: Gilberto Bertin <jibi@cilium.io>
…b rules and routes"" This reverts commit 368ec8e. Signed-off-by: Gilberto Bertin <jibi@cilium.io>
…fib rules"" This reverts commit ed5114d. Signed-off-by: Gilberto Bertin <jibi@cilium.io>
This reverts commit dbce5f1. Signed-off-by: Gilberto Bertin <jibi@cilium.io>
…nt"" This reverts commit 9e62a84. Signed-off-by: Gilberto Bertin <jibi@cilium.io>
This reverts commit 63c2e2a. Signed-off-by: Gilberto Bertin <jibi@cilium.io>
This reverts commit 5fb791d. Signed-off-by: Gilberto Bertin <jibi@cilium.io>
…g routes"" This reverts commit 0f3e989. Signed-off-by: Gilberto Bertin <jibi@cilium.io>
This reverts commit 3271cb2. Signed-off-by: Gilberto Bertin <jibi@cilium.io>
…nd routes"" This reverts commit afdc51f. Signed-off-by: Gilberto Bertin <jibi@cilium.io>
…es and rules"" This reverts commit 9b5e74b. Signed-off-by: Gilberto Bertin <jibi@cilium.io>
…nd routes"" This reverts commit 2b6d5c4. Signed-off-by: Gilberto Bertin <jibi@cilium.io>
…nel"" This reverts commit 05593ee. Signed-off-by: Gilberto Bertin <jibi@cilium.io>
This reverts commit a9cad19. Signed-off-by: Gilberto Bertin <jibi@cilium.io>
…roto kernel"" This reverts commit 9d60341. Signed-off-by: Gilberto Bertin <jibi@cilium.io>
|
/test |
|
Adding flag to hold merge given @aanm noticed an issue locally that we need to investigate before merging. |
|
I got this diff in the before and after an upgrade. I wonder if this could be the reason why connectivity gets broken after upgrade. |
That's just how the reverted patch works. AFAICS, nothing that looks out of the ordinary. Is that the "issue" you noticed locally? |
|
not sure if just a red herring, but after the upgrade, beside the diff <(cat before.txt | grep cilium_host) <(cat after.txt | grep cilium_host)
1,5c1,5
< default via 10.0.1.62 dev cilium_host table 2005
< 10.0.1.62 dev cilium_host table 2005 scope link
< 10.0.0.0/24 via 10.0.1.62 dev cilium_host src 10.0.1.62 mtu 1450
< 10.0.1.0/24 via 10.0.1.62 dev cilium_host src 10.0.1.62
< 10.0.1.62 dev cilium_host scope link
---
> default via 10.0.1.62 dev cilium_host table 2005 proto kernel
> 10.0.1.62 dev cilium_host table 2005 proto kernel scope link
> 10.0.0.0/24 via 10.0.1.62 dev cilium_host proto kernel src 10.0.1.62 mtu 1450
> 10.0.1.0/24 via 10.0.1.62 dev cilium_host proto kernel src 10.0.1.62
> 10.0.1.62 dev cilium_host proto kernel scope link
7,8c7,8
< fe80::8f9:c6ff:fe3d:3775 dev cilium_host table 2005 metric 1024 pref medium
< default via fe80::8f9:c6ff:fe3d:3775 dev cilium_host table 2005 metric 1024 pref medium
---
> fe80::8f9:c6ff:fe3d:3775 dev cilium_host table 2005 proto kernel metric 1024 pref medium
> default via fe80::8f9:c6ff:fe3d:3775 dev cilium_host table 2005 proto kernel metric 1024 pref medium
10,13c10,12
< fd02::/120 via fd02::1cf dev cilium_host src fc00:c111::4 metric 1024 mtu 1450 pref medium
< fd02::1cf dev cilium_host metric 1024 pref medium
< fd02::100/120 via fd02::1cf dev cilium_host src fc00:c111::4 metric 1024 pref medium
< fe80::/64 dev cilium_host proto kernel metric 256 pref medium
---
> fd02::/120 via fd02::1cf dev cilium_host proto kernel src fc00:c111::4 metric 1024 mtu 1450 pref medium
> fd02::1cf dev cilium_host proto kernel metric 1024 pref medium
> fd02::100/120 via fd02::1cf dev cilium_host proto kernel src fc00:c111::4 metric 1024 pref medium
15,16d13
< anycast fe80:: dev cilium_host table local proto kernel metric 0 pref medium
< local fe80::241d:fff:fe71:c0db dev cilium_host table local proto kernel metric 0 pref medium |
No, the issue is that after an upgrade from 1.13, all the connectivity of all pods break, including hostNetwork pods, and they never recover. I just tried to understand if any of the route diff would explain this issue. |
|
If it's IPv6 that breaks, then maybe Jibi has the explanation above. If IPv4 breaks as well, then I don't think the route changes are related. We probably need someone from datapath to dig into this. |
asauber
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Approving as a "revert revert" which doesn't appear to break anything. Reaching out to the original reviewers might help for additional approvals here.
|
@nickolaev do you think #24756 (comment) is related to the changes introduced in #24288? Should we reintroduce back that PR? |
|
I'm closing this while we figure out what to do. |
|
(cc @NikAleksandrov as I initially pinged the wrong Nikolay) |
This PR undoes a revert PR, #24288, which was reverting #24288 and #24577.
We believed the 2 aforementioned PRs introduced a regression on the upgrade from 1.13 to latest, but after the revert the CI is still failing.