Hello,
I have been posting to the users thread about this issue. here is a quick
summary in case if people contributing to the source nat code on the VPC side
would like to fix this issue.
Problem summary: no connectivity between virtual machines behind two Static NAT
networks.
Problem case: When one virtual machine sends a packet to the external address
of the another virtual machine that are handled by the same router and both are
behind the Static NAT the traffic does not work.
10.1.10.100 10.1.10.1:eth2 eth3:10.1.20.1 10.1.20.100
virt1 <---> router <---> virt2
178.248.108.77:eth1:178.248.108.113
a single packet is send from virt1 to virt2.
stage1: it arrives to the router on eth2 and enters "nat_PREROUTING"
IN=eth2 OUT= SRC=10.1.10.100 DST=178.248.108.113)
goes through the "10 1K DNAT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 178.248.108.113
to:10.1.20.100
" rule and has the DST DNATED to the internal IP of the virt2
stage2: Enters the FORWARDING chain and is being DROPPED by the default policy.
DROPPED:IN=eth2 OUT=eth1 SRC=10.1.10.100 DST=10.1.20.100
The reason being is that the OUT interface is not correctly changed from eth1
to eth3 during the nat_PREROUTING
so the packet is not intercepted by the FORWARD rule and thus not accepted.
"24 14K ACL_INBOUND_eth3 all -- * eth3 0.0.0.0/0 10.1.20.0/24"
stage3: manually inserted rule to accept this packet for FORWARDING.
the packet enters the "nat_POSTROUTING" chain
IN= OUT=eth1 SRC=10.1.10.100 DST=10.1.20.100
and has the SRC changed to the external IP
16 1320 SNAT all -- * eth1 10.1.10.100 0.0.0.0/0 to:178.248.108.77
and is sent to the external network on eth1.
13:37:44.834341 IP 178.248.108.77 > 10.1.20.100: ICMP echo request, id 2644,
seq 2, length 64
For some reason, during the nat_PREROUTING stage the DST_IP is changed, but the
OUT interface still reflects the interface associated with the old DST_IP.
Here is the routing table
# ip route list
default via 178.248.108.1 dev eth1
10.1.10.0/24 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 10.1.10.1
10.1.20.0/24 dev eth3 proto kernel scope link src 10.1.20.1
169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 169.254.0.5
178.248.108.0/25 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 178.248.108.101
# ip rule list
0: from all lookup local
32761: from all fwmark 0x3 lookup Table_eth3
32762: from all fwmark 0x2 lookup Table_eth2
32763: from all fwmark 0x1 lookup Table_eth1
32764: from 10.1.0.0/16 lookup static_route_back
32765: from 10.1.0.0/16 lookup static_route
32766: from all lookup main
32767: from all lookup default
Further into the investigation, the problem was pinned down to those rules.
All the traffic from internal IP on the static NATed connection were forced to
go to the outside interface (eth1), by setting the mark 0x1 and then using the
matching # ip rule to direct it.
#iptables -t mangle -L PREROUTING -vn
Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 97 packets, 11395 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
49 3644 CONNMARK all -- * * 10.1.10.100 0.0.0.0/0 state NEW CONNMARK save
37 2720 MARK all -- * * 10.1.20.100 0.0.0.0/0 state NEW MARK set 0x1
37 2720 CONNMARK all -- * * 10.1.20.100 0.0.0.0/0 state NEW CONNMARK save
114 8472 MARK all -- * * 10.1.10.100 0.0.0.0/0 state NEW MARK set 0x1
114 8472 CONNMARK all -- * * 10.1.10.100 0.0.0.0/0 state NEW CONNMARK save
# ip rule
0: from all lookup local
32761: from all fwmark 0x3 lookup Table_eth3
32762: from all fwmark 0x2 lookup Table_eth2
32763: from all fwmark 0x1 lookup Table_eth1
32764: from 10.1.0.0/16 lookup static_route_back
32765: from 10.1.0.0/16 lookup static_route
32766: from all lookup main
32767: from all lookup default
The acceptable solution is to delete those rules all together.?
The problem with such approach is that the inter VPC traffic will use the
internal IP addresses,
so the packets going from 178.248.108.77 to 178.248.108.113
would be seen as communication between 10.1.10.100 and 10.1.20.100
thus we need to apply further two rules
# iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING -o eth3 -s 10.1.10.0/24 -d 10.1.20.0/24 -j
SNAT --to-source 178.248.108.77
# iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING -o eth2 -s 10.1.20.0/24 -d 10.1.10.0/24 -j
SNAT --to-source 178.248.108.113
in order to make sure that the packets leaving the router would have correct
source IP.
This way it is possible to have static NAT on all of the IPS within the VPC and
ensure a successful communication between them.
So, for a quick and dirty fix, we ran this command on the VR:
for i in iptables -t mangle -L PREROUTING -vn | awk '/0x1/ && !/eth1/ {print
$8}'; do iptables -t mangle -D PREROUTING -s $i -m state —state NEW -j MARK
—set-mark "0x1" ; done
The issue has been introduced around early 4.9.x releases I believe.
Thanks
Andrei
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrei Mikhailovsky" <and...@arhont.com.INVALID>
> To: "users" <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, 16 April, 2018 22:32:25
> Subject: Re: Upgrade from ACS 4.9.3 to 4.11.0
> Hello,
>
> I have done some more testing with the VPC network tiers and it seems that
> the
> Static NAT is indeed causing connectivity issues. Here is what I've done:
>
>
> Setup 1. I have created two test network tiers with one guest vm in each
> tier.
> Static NAT is NOT enabled. Each VM has a port forwarding rule (port 22) from
> its dedicated public IP address. ACLs have been setup to allow traffic on
> port
> 22 from the private ip addresses on each network tier.
>
> 1. ACLs seems to work just fine. traffic between the networks flows according
> to
> the rules. both vms can see each other's private IPs and can ping/ssh/etc
>
> 2. From the Internet hosts can access vms on port 22
>
> 4. The vms can also access each other and itself on their public IPs. I don't
> think this worked before, but could be wrong.
>
>
>
> Setup 2. Everything the same as Setup 1, but one public IP address has been
> setup as Static NAT to one guest vm. the second guest vm and second public IP
> remained unchanged.
>
> 1. ACLs stopped working correctly (see below)
>
> 2. From the Internet hosts can access vms on port 22, including the Static
> NAT
> vm
>
> 3. Other guest vms can access the Static NAT vm using private & public IP
> addresses
>
> 4. Static NAT vm can NOT access other vms neither using public nor private
> IPs
>
> 5. Static NAT vm can access the internet hosts (apart from the public IP
> range
> belonging to the cloudstack setup)
>
>
> The above behaviour of Setup 2 scenarios is very strange, especially points 4
> &
> 5.
>
> Any thoughts anyone?
>
> Cheers
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Rohit Yadav" <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com>
>> To: "users" <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, 12 April, 2018 12:06:54
>> Subject: Re: Upgrade from ACS 4.9.3 to 4.11.0
>
>> Hi Andrei,
>>
>>
>> Thanks for sharing, yes the egress thing is a known issue which is caused
>> due to
>> failure during VR setup to create egress table. By performing a restart of
>> the
>> network (without cleanup option selected), the egress table gets created and
>> rules are successfully applied.
>>
>>
>> The issue has been fixed in the vr downtime pr:
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2508
>>
>>
>> - Rohit
>>
>> <https://cloudstack.apache.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Andrei Mikhailovsky <and...@arhont.com.INVALID>
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 3:33:43 PM
>> To: users
>> Subject: Re: Upgrade from ACS 4.9.3 to 4.11.0
>>
>> Rohit,
>>
>> Following the update from 4.9.3 to 4.11.0, I would like to comment on a few
>> things:
>>
>> 1. The upgrade went well, a part from the cloudstack-management server
>> startup
>> issue that I've described in my previous email.
>> 2. there was an issue with the virtual router template upgrade. The issue is
>> described below:
>>
>> VR template upgrade issue:
>>
>> After updating the systemvm template I went onto the Infrastructure >
>> Virtual
>> Routers and selected the Update template option for each virtual router. The
>> virtual routers were updated successfully using the new templates. However,
>> this has broken ALL Egress rules on all networks and none of the guest vms.
>> Port forwarding / incoming rules were working just fine. Removal and
>> addition
>> of Egress rules did not fix the issue. To fix the issue I had to restart
>> each
>> of the networks with the Clean up option ticked.
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Andrei
>>
>> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
>> www.shapeblue.com
>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
>> @shapeblue
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Andrei Mikhailovsky" <and...@arhont.com.INVALID>
>>> To: "users" <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, 2 April, 2018 21:44:27
>>> Subject: Re: Upgrade from ACS 4.9.3 to 4.11.0
>>
>>> Hi Rohit,
>>>
>>> Following some further investigation it seems that the installation
>>> packages
>>> replaced the following file:
>>>
>>> /etc/default/cloudstack-management
>>>
>>> with
>>>
>>> /etc/default/cloudstack-management.dpkg-dist
>>>
>>>
>>> Thus, the management server couldn't load the env variables and thus was
>>> unable
>>> to start.
>>>
>>> I've put the file back and the management server is able to start.
>>>
>>> I will let you know if there are any other issues/problems.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Andrei Mikhailovsky" <and...@arhont.com.INVALID>
>>>> To: "users" <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>> Sent: Monday, 2 April, 2018 20:58:59
>>>> Subject: Re: Upgrade from ACS 4.9.3 to 4.11.0
>>>
>>>> Hi Rohit,
>>>>
>>>> I have just upgraded and having issues starting the service with the
>>>> following
>>>> error:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Apr 02 20:56:37 ais-cloudhost13 systemd[1]: cloudstack-management.service:
>>>> Failed to load environment files: No such file or directory
>>>> Apr 02 20:56:37 ais-cloudhost13 systemd[1]: cloudstack-management.service:
>>>> Failed to run 'start-pre' task: No such file or directory
>>>> Apr 02 20:56:37 ais-cloudhost13 systemd[1]: Failed to start CloudStack
>>>> Management Server.
>>>> -- Subject: Unit cloudstack-management.service has failed
>>>> -- Defined-By: systemd
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Andrei
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Rohit Yadav" <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com>
>>>>> To: "users" <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2018 19:17:48
>>>>> Subject: Re: Upgrade from ACS 4.9.3 to 4.11.0
>>>>
>>>>> Some of the upgrade and minor issues have been fixed and will make their
>>>>> way
>>>>> into 4.11.1.0. You're welcome to upgrade and share your feedback, but
>>>>> bear in
>>>>> mind due to some changes a new/updated systemvmtemplate need to be issued
>>>>> for
>>>>> 4.11.1.0 (it will be compatible for both 4.11.0.0 and 4.11.1.0 releases,
>>>>> but
>>>>> 4.11.0.0 users will have to register that new template).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Rohit
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Andrei Mikhailovsky <and...@arhont.com.INVALID>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 11:00:34 PM
>>>>> To: users
>>>>> Subject: Upgrade from ACS 4.9.3 to 4.11.0
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> My current infrastructure is ACS 4.9.3 with KVM based on Ubuntu 16.04
>>>>> servers
>>>>> for the KVM hosts and the management server.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am planning to perform an upgrade from ACS 4.9.3 to 4.11.0 and was
>>>>> wondering
>>>>> if anyone had any issues during the upgrades? Anything to watch out for?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have previously seen issues with upgrading to 4.10, which required some
>>>>> manual
>>>>> db updates from what I recall. Has this issue been fixed in the 4.11
>>>>> upgrade
>>>>> process?
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrei
>>>>>
>>>>> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
>>>>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
>>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
> > > > > @shapeblue
