Question about LAN/WAN isolation

[Silver_Bullet]

Hi all

I have a BPI-R1, and just as your have described in the wiki, the WAN and LAN is separated with VLAN instead of layer 2 isolation, the BCM chip's configurement will be reset once it reboot, and U-Boot will flush configurements when boot. Though I have fixed by modifying uboot and add a flash memory, it still ugly.

Now I have seen BPI-R2 is using a new ethernet chip. Will the LAN and WAN be isolated?

I'm hoping that the WAN and LAN are isolated on every boot time, and unless I have configured specifically to forward the packets, they should be isolated during the whole boot time and not connected.

Thanks.

[Karol_Bizewski]

Hi!

As I see in driver of switch (MT7530) WAN and LAN ports are not physically isolated. Datasheet for switch IC is unfortunately unavailable.

Here I'm proposing to add second PHY with copper Ethernet and SFP connector. This would also fix WAN isolation issue.

Banana Pi BPI-R2 Open Source smart router with MTK 7623N design

Hi! Realy nice hardware, but one more feature would be really useful. Now, GPON is more and more popular, also ONT are available as SFP module. Maybe R2 could be eqipped with SFP cage? To make this, one of RGMII interface should me moved from MT7530 switch to separate PHY, like AR8031, which support copper and fiber (by SGMII/SerDes). https://media.digikey.com/pdf/Data%20Sheets/CSR%20PDFs/AR8031_DS_(Atheros)_Rev1.0_Aug2011.pdf Total BOM would be rised by AR8031 and SFP cage cost, no mor…

Best regards,

Karol

[linkerosa]

in fact, the mt7530 dsa will take every port as the independent net devices. you can use brctl to make each port into port bridge group as software bridge had been done. the isolation process is done in boot time. which should be satisfying with your need.

[linkerosa]

As I see in driver of switch (MT7530) WAN and LAN ports are not physically isolated

where is those idea you're getting from?

[Silver_Bullet]

Great, so the security problem is solved. However I found some potential performance issues.

If those 5 ports are treated as independent net devices, what I will see in ifconfig is something like enp5s0, enp5s1, ..., enp5s4. And if so, the only way to forward layer 2 packets is by using software bridge, which might cause a heavy load on CPU. Do you think I can use something like swconfig to make some ports are layer 2 connected, so packets between these ports would be treated by the switch chip instead of CPU?

[Silver_Bullet]

Here I'm proposing to add second PHY with copper Ethernet and SFP connector.

Seems not easy. The problem might not be the layout. The problem is:

1. Different ISP may have their own FTTH configs, which might be their secret, and you can not use their SFP link unless using there own fiber modem. However this can be bypassed using some other techniques, such as flash dumping or solder a pair of TTL lines from the board. The real problem might be:
2. If it will be used as an WAN port for a NAT router, I don't think the CPU can hold such a large amount traffic. On the last generation (BPI-R1), I have tested and the speed seems limited at around 20MiB/s under NAT mode. Hardware NAT is a possible solution.

Actually, I REALLY want those developers can add an FPGA chip between the switch chip and one of the Ethernet ports. If so, maybe we can write an hardware NAT module.

[linkerosa]

1) the first thing i want to say is dsa is not fully supported in linux 4.4 the sinovoip has, but it is added in LEDE tree. you could refer to http://forum.banana-pi.org/t/bpi-r2-openwrt-lede-source-code-release/3769/3

2) dsa only reuses the same command brctl to take more abstraction between software/hardware bridge. if you make bridges between net devices exported by dsa. the data routing would be on going in the hardware internally in switch, offloading cpu. so that this is called hardware bridge.

[linkerosa]

Actually, I REALLY want those developers can add an FPGA chip between the switch chip and one of the Ethernet ports. If so, maybe we can write an hardware NAT module.

great idea but please stop the crazy idea going on

MediaTek chips seemed to have HARDWARE NAT between cpu ports. maybe it will be got support in the near future. let's keep calm and stay tune

the information is I got from https://github.com/lede-project/source/blob/master/target/linux/mediatek/patches-4.9/0056-net-mediatek-add-hw-nat-support.patch

[Karol_Bizewski]

As You wrote, separation is done by firmware at booting, so there is no physical isolation, and as Silver_Bullet said, it still ugly.

[Karol_Bizewski]

Different ISP may have their own FTTH configs, which might be their secret, and you can not use their SFP link unless using there own fiber modem. However this can be bypassed using some other techniques, such as flash dumping or solder a pair of TTL lines from the board

People are already working on GPON access:

https://pierrekim.github.io/blog/2016-11-01-gpon-ftth-networks-insecurity.html

https://lafibre.info/remplacer-livebox/configuration-routeros-mikrotik-pour-livebox/24/

http://forum.sfptotal.com/viewtopic.php?t=83

Please advice which SFP module to choose

If it will be used as an WAN port for a NAT router, I don't think the CPU can hold such a large amount traffic. On the last generation (BPI-R1), I have tested and the speed seems limited at around 20MiB/s under NAT mode. Hardware NAT is a possible solution.

The point is to use MT7623 HNAT for GPON, where bandwith can reach >500Mbps. HNAT for MTK is coming..

Actually, I REALLY want those developers can add an FPGA chip between the switch chip and one of the Ethernet ports. If so, maybe we can write an hardware NAT module.

For me, that is too exotic. Who will maintain FPGA code and linux support? Propably, looking at current HNAT support, support would be very limited..

[Silver_Bullet]

separation is done by firmware at booting, so there is no physical isolation

So at least we can get isolation under default unconfigured status. Though it might be ugly, at least this is more security than before.

---

dsa is not fully supported in linux 4.4 the sinovoip has, but it is added in LEDE tree.

That is okay...I don't have much old code so it would not be a really hard choice...

---

MediaTek chips seemed to have HARDWARE NAT between cpu ports. maybe it will be got support in the near future. let's keep calm and stay tune

Great. I'll check it.

---

People are already working on GPON access:

Yeah I know...I mean, under this situation, using devices from the ISP is not a bad choice since those ISP guys may using ACS to update settings in the ONU.

However, if you are planning to connect the board to a dedicated line or something would have a stable config environment, that would be great to have a SFP on it.

---

For me, that is too exotic. Who will maintain FPGA code and linux support?

For fun and hacking, lol.

[Karol_Bizewski]

MediaTek chips seemed to have HARDWARE NAT between cpu ports. maybe it will be got support in the near future. let's keep calm and stay tune

Great. I'll check it.

It seems, that R2 already has some code for HNAT:

BPI-SINOVOIP/BPI-R2-bsp/blob/160dcd59a18d79fe374dcdfae615e361b56070c1/linux-mt/drivers/net/ethernet/raeth/raether.h

#if defined(CONFIG_RA_HW_NAT)  || defined(CONFIG_RA_HW_NAT_MODULE)
    #include <net/ra_nat.h>
#endif

Yeah I know...I mean, under this situation, using devices from the ISP is not a bad choice since those ISP guys may using ACS to update settings in the ONU.

However, if you are planning to connect the board to a dedicated line or something would have a stable config environment, that would be great to have a SFP on it.

SFP GPON ONT works just as a simple bridge beside it does also authorization to OLT (look at one of link I sent) all other things like VLANs, routing, NAT, PPPoE etc is done on connected router, like R2.

So, I'm looking for router with SFP connector for GPON. Beside R2 (if HW team would add SFP) I'm considering also ClearFog Base

https://www.solid-run.com/marvell-armada-family/clearfog/

But, beside it is slightly higher price than R2, I don't know state of it's HWNAT, what is (IMO) must-have at GPON speeds.

[Karol_Bizewski]

If it will be used as an WAN port for a NAT router, I don't think the CPU can hold such a large amount traffic. On the last generation (BPI-R1), I have tested and the speed seems limited at around 20MiB/s under NAT mode. Hardware NAT is a possible solution.

Performance of IP forwarding over both GMACs(eth0 and eth1)

Below is the performance of IP forwarding over GMACs(eth0 and eth1): Single direction flow [image] Bidirection flow [image] Statistics on R2 board: root@LEDE:/proc/irq/70# ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr EE:86:59:C8:EB:3A inet addr:192.168.1.1 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::ec86:59ff:fec8:eb3a/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:26822854 errors:0 dropped:0 ove…

Not far away to 1Gbps throughput for NAT

[alfer]

Am not a geek like ya'all and am not sure if I post in the right thread but here goes. I have 3 ISP connections which I would like to combine to get an aggregated bandwidth. If one link goes down, the other two should still function so that I have connectivity although at a degraded performance. I do need an alarm though that a link is down. Most importantly, ECMP is sought to take full advantage of the aggregation. While most of the functions are available at the OS/firmware level (open source) with options to customize, I find it hard to get the required hardware.

The BPI-R2 fits my bill but I'd like to switch the LAN/WAN capability - i.e., use the 4 ports for WAN and 1 port for LAN. Is this possible? Will running VyOS or DD-WRT or Mikrotik etc. provide me the possibility to do that on the R2 platform or is it something that needs to be designed/separated at the hardware level?

[frank-w]

Currently there is no way to access the 4 ports of "lan"-site because you have only 1 interface for that.

If we get vlan-functionality working this may be possible