1

I'm new to Mininet and POX controller to simulate SDN. I want to create the following network, using Mininet Python API:

Network Topology

My objective is to let each host/router send packets to all the other hosts/routers. To do that, I used ip route command. This is my Python code for creating the network:

#!/usr/bin/python
from mininet.topo import Topo
from mininet.net import Mininet
from mininet.node import Node
from mininet.node import RemoteController
from mininet.log import setLogLevel, info
from mininet.cli import CLI

class LinuxRouter(Node):
    def config(self, **params):
        super(LinuxRouter, self).config(**params)
        self.cmd('sysctl net.ipv4.ip_forward=1')

    def terminate(self):
        self.cmd('sysctl net.ipv4.ip_forward=0')
        super(LinuxRouter, self).terminate()


class NetworkTopo(Topo):
    def build(self, **_opts):
        # Add 4 routers in four different subnets
        r1 = self.addHost('r1', cls=LinuxRouter, ip='10.0.0.1/24')
        r2 = self.addHost('r2', cls=LinuxRouter, ip='10.1.0.1/24')
        r3 = self.addHost('r3', cls=LinuxRouter, ip='10.2.0.1/24')
        r4 = self.addHost('r4', cls=LinuxRouter, ip='10.3.0.1/24')

        # Add 2 switches
        s1 = self.addSwitch('s1')
        s2 = self.addSwitch('s2')
        s3 = self.addSwitch('s3')
        s4 = self.addSwitch('s4') 

        # Add host-switch links in the same subnet
        self.addLink(s1,
                     r1,
                     intfName2='r1-eth1',
                     params2={'ip': '10.0.0.1/24'})

        self.addLink(s2,
                     r2,
                     intfName2='r2-eth1',
                     params2={'ip': '10.1.0.1/24'})

        self.addLink(s3,
                     r3,
                     intfName2='r3-eth1',
                     params2={'ip': '10.2.0.1/24'})

        self.addLink(s4,
                     r4,
                     intfName2='r4-eth1',
                     params2={'ip': '10.3.0.1/24'})

        # Add router-router links in new subnets for the router-router connections
        self.addLink(r1,
                     r2,
                     intfName1='r1-eth2',
                     intfName2='r2-eth2',
                     params1={'ip': '10.100.0.1/24'},
                     params2={'ip': '10.100.0.2/24'})
    
        self.addLink(r1,
                     r3,
                     intfName1='r1-eth3',
                     intfName2='r3-eth2',
                     params1={'ip': '10.101.0.1/24'},
                     params2={'ip': '10.101.0.2/24'})
    
        self.addLink(r3,
                     r4,
                     intfName1='r3-eth3',
                     intfName2='r4-eth2',
                     params1={'ip': '10.102.0.1/24'},
                     params2={'ip': '10.102.0.2/24'})
    
        self.addLink(r2,
                     r4,
                     intfName1='r2-eth3',
                     intfName2='r4-eth3',
                     params1={'ip': '10.103.0.1/24'},
                     params2={'ip': '10.103.0.2/24'})

        # Adding hosts specifying the default route
        h1 = self.addHost(name='h1',
                          ip='10.0.0.10/24',
                          defaultRoute='via 10.0.0.1')
        h2 = self.addHost(name='h2',
                          ip='10.1.0.10/24',
                          defaultRoute='via 10.1.0.1')
    
        h3 = self.addHost(name='h3',
                          ip='10.2.0.10/24',
                          defaultRoute='via 10.2.0.1')
                      
        h4 = self.addHost(name='h4',
                          ip='10.3.0.10/24',
                          defaultRoute='via 10.3.0.1')

        # Add host-switch links
        self.addLink(h1, s1)
        self.addLink(h2, s2)
        self.addLink(h3, s3)
        self.addLink(h4, s4)


def run():
    topo = NetworkTopo()
    net = Mininet(topo=topo, controller=RemoteController)

    # Add routing for reaching networks that aren't directly connected
    info(net['r1'].cmd("ip route add 10.1.0.0/24 via 10.100.0.2 dev r1-eth2"))
    info(net['r1'].cmd("ip route add 10.2.0.0/24 via 10.101.0.2 dev r1-eth3"))
    info(net['r1'].cmd("ip route add 10.3.0.0/24 via 10.101.0.2 dev r1-eth3"))
    info(net['r1'].cmd("ip route add 10.3.0.0/24 via 10.100.0.2 dev r1-eth2"))

    info(net['r2'].cmd("ip route add 10.0.0.0/24 via 10.100.0.1 dev r2-eth2"))
    info(net['r2'].cmd("ip route add 10.3.0.0/24 via 10.103.0.2 dev r2-eth3"))
    info(net['r2'].cmd("ip route add 10.2.0.0/24 via 10.103.0.2 dev r2-eth3"))
    info(net['r2'].cmd("ip route add 10.2.0.0/24 via 10.100.0.1 dev r2-eth2"))

    info(net['r3'].cmd("ip route add 10.0.0.0/24 via 10.101.0.1 dev r3-eth2"))
    info(net['r3'].cmd("ip route add 10.3.0.0/24 via 10.102.0.2 dev r3-eth3"))
    info(net['r3'].cmd("ip route add 10.1.0.0/24 via 10.102.0.2 dev r3-eth3"))
    info(net['r3'].cmd("ip route add 10.1.0.0/24 via 10.101.0.1 dev r3-eth2"))

    info(net['r4'].cmd("ip route add 10.1.0.0/24 via 10.103.0.1 dev r4-eth3"))
    info(net['r4'].cmd("ip route add 10.2.0.0/24 via 10.102.0.1 dev r4-eth2"))    
    info(net['r4'].cmd("ip route add 10.0.0.0/24 via 10.102.0.1 dev r4-eth2"))
    info(net['r4'].cmd("ip route add 10.0.0.0/24 via 10.103.0.1 dev r4-eth3"))    

    net.start()
    CLI(net)
    net.stop()


if __name__ == '__main__':
    setLogLevel('info')
    run()

This is the output of net command on Mininet CLI:

h1 h1-eth0:s1-eth2
h2 h2-eth0:s2-eth2
h3 h3-eth0:s3-eth2
h4 h4-eth0:s4-eth2
r1 r1-eth1:s1-eth1 r1-eth2:r2-eth2 r1-eth3:r3-eth2
r2 r2-eth1:s2-eth1 r2-eth2:r1-eth2 r2-eth3:r4-eth3
r3 r3-eth1:s3-eth1 r3-eth2:r1-eth3 r3-eth3:r4-eth2
r4 r4-eth1:s4-eth1 r4-eth2:r3-eth3 r4-eth3:r2-eth3
s1 lo:  s1-eth1:r1-eth1 s1-eth2:h1-eth0
s2 lo:  s2-eth1:r2-eth1 s2-eth2:h2-eth0
s3 lo:  s3-eth1:r3-eth1 s3-eth2:h3-eth0
s4 lo:  s4-eth1:r4-eth1 s4-eth2:h4-eth0
c0

I have two issues:

1- Running pingall on mininet CLI, gives this output:

mininet> pingall
*** Ping: testing ping reachability
h1 -> h2 h3 h4 r1 r2 r3 r4 
h2 -> h1 h3 h4 r1 r2 r3 r4 
h3 -> h1 h2 h4 r1 r2 r3 r4 
h4 -> h1 h2 h3 r1 r2 r3 r4 
r1 -> h1 h2 h3 X r2 r3 X 
r2 -> h1 h2 X h4 r1 X r4 
r3 -> h1 X h3 h4 r1 X r4 
r4 -> X h2 h3 h4 X r2 r3 
*** Results: 14% dropped (48/56 received)

Why can't routers send packet to "opposite" routers and hosts ? I do not understand why hosts can send packet to router instead.

2- Using two entries with same destination in the "routing table", for example: 

info(net['r1'].cmd("ip route add 10.3.0.0/24 via 10.101.0.2 dev r1-eth3"))
info(net['r1'].cmd("ip route add 10.3.0.0/24 via 10.100.0.2 dev r1-eth2"))

produces this warning in the output:

RTNETLINK answers: File exists

and alternative route paths can't be used. I want to let h1 send packets to host h4 by passing through router r2, but also by passing through router r3. How can I fix "multiple paths" with ip route command?

dnyll
  • 108
  • 1
  • 8
  • Thanks for sharing code. I don't see a POX portion in your snippet. Would you share how to run POX controller with your code? – Cloud Cho Dec 10 '22 at 05:51
  • 1
    To run POX: `python3 home/pox/pox.py log.level --DEBUG samples.pretty_log forwarding.l2_pairs` – dnyll Dec 10 '22 at 18:56
  • Thanks for instruction to run the POX controller. Even with under Lars suggestion, It looks like router 4 ---> router 1 not established. Is there any extra step (to all routers could talk each other)? – Cloud Cho Dec 15 '22 at 20:52
  • Everything worked fine for me, using @Lars guidelines. – dnyll Dec 15 '22 at 20:57

1 Answers1

3

Let's start with this:

r1 -> h1 h2 h3 X r2 r3 X

Why can't r1 ping h4? h4 is 10.3.0.10. r1 has the following route table:

mininet> r1 ip route
10.0.0.0/24 dev r1-eth1 proto kernel scope link src 10.0.0.1
10.1.0.0/24 via 10.100.0.2 dev r1-eth2
10.2.0.0/24 via 10.101.0.2 dev r1-eth3
10.3.0.0/24 via 10.101.0.2 dev r1-eth3 metric 100
10.3.0.0/24 via 10.100.0.2 dev r1-eth2 metric 200
10.100.0.0/24 dev r1-eth2 proto kernel scope link src 10.100.0.1
10.101.0.0/24 dev r1-eth3 proto kernel scope link src 10.101.0.1

Requests to h4 at 10.3.0.10 are going to route via 10.101.0.2 (r3), with a source address of 10.101.0.1.

r3 has the following route table:

mininet> r3 ip route
10.0.0.0/24 via 10.101.0.1 dev r3-eth2
10.1.0.0/24 via 10.102.0.2 dev r3-eth3 metric 100
10.1.0.0/24 via 10.101.0.1 dev r3-eth2 metric 200
10.2.0.0/24 dev r3-eth1 proto kernel scope link src 10.2.0.1
10.3.0.0/24 via 10.102.0.2 dev r3-eth3
10.101.0.0/24 dev r3-eth2 proto kernel scope link src 10.101.0.2
10.102.0.0/24 dev r3-eth3 proto kernel scope link src 10.102.0.1

So r3 is going to route to 10.3.0.10 via 10.102.0.2. That's r4, which has this route table:

mininet> r4 ip route
10.0.0.0/24 via 10.102.0.1 dev r4-eth2 metric 100
10.0.0.0/24 via 10.103.0.1 dev r4-eth3 metric 200
10.1.0.0/24 via 10.103.0.1 dev r4-eth3
10.2.0.0/24 via 10.102.0.1 dev r4-eth2
10.3.0.0/24 dev r4-eth1 proto kernel scope link src 10.3.0.1
10.102.0.0/24 dev r4-eth2 proto kernel scope link src 10.102.0.2
10.103.0.0/24 dev r4-eth3 proto kernel scope link src 10.103.0.2

And here we have a problem: r4 has no route back to 10.101.0.0/24, nor does it have a default gateway. This causes two problems:

  1. r4 will be unable to reply to those ICMP echo request packets. Attempts to contact any system on the 10.101.0.0/24 network will fail:

    mininet> r4 ping 10.101.0.1
ping: connect: Network is unreachable

  2. Because of the rp_filter settings on r4...

    mininet> r4 sysctl -a -r rp_filter
net.ipv4.conf.all.arp_filter = 0
net.ipv4.conf.all.rp_filter = 2
net.ipv4.conf.default.arp_filter = 0
net.ipv4.conf.default.rp_filter = 2
net.ipv4.conf.lo.arp_filter = 0
net.ipv4.conf.lo.rp_filter = 2
net.ipv4.conf.r4-eth1.arp_filter = 0
net.ipv4.conf.r4-eth1.rp_filter = 2
net.ipv4.conf.r4-eth2.arp_filter = 0
net.ipv4.conf.r4-eth2.rp_filter = 2
net.ipv4.conf.r4-eth3.arp_filter = 0
net.ipv4.conf.r4-eth3.rp_filter = 2

    ...incoming packets from a network that is not reachable will simply be dropped, so requests stop at r4 and never get passed on to h4.

The solution here is to give r4 a route back to 10.101.0.0/24 hosts. The obvious choices seems to be via r3, so:

mininet> r4 ip route add 10.101.0.0/24 via 10.102.0.1

With that new route in place, we can ping h4 from r1:

mininet> r1 ping -c3 h4
PING 10.3.0.10 (10.3.0.10) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.3.0.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=62 time=1.15 ms
64 bytes from 10.3.0.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=62 time=0.160 ms
64 bytes from 10.3.0.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=62 time=0.048 ms

--- 10.3.0.10 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2030ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.048/0.451/1.147/0.493 ms

Using two entries with same destination in the "routing table"...produces this warning in the output: RTNETLINK answers: File exists

When making a routing decision, the kernel wants to find a single matching route. You can't have multiple routes to the same destination using different gateways without some way to differentiate the two. First, what behavior do you want with these two routes? A typical solution is to assign the routes different weights, so that one will be used by preference, but it it becomes unavailable (e.g., the interface goes down), the secondary route will be selected. For example:

    info(net['r1'].cmd("ip route add 10.1.0.0/24 via 10.100.0.2 dev r1-eth2"))
    info(net['r1'].cmd("ip route add 10.2.0.0/24 via 10.101.0.2 dev r1-eth3"))
    info(net['r1'].cmd("ip route add 10.3.0.0/24 via 10.101.0.2 dev r1-eth3 metric 100"))
    info(net['r1'].cmd("ip route add 10.3.0.0/24 via 10.100.0.2 dev r1-eth2 metric 200"))
larsks
  • 277,717
  • 41
  • 399
  • 399
  • Thank you for the exhaustive answer! For the second issue, I just wanted to simulate a link/network failure and let routes still working: the metric option is what I was looking for. – dnyll Jun 14 '22 at 07:50