On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Milan Obuch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:49:57 +0200 > Ian FREISLICH <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Milan Obuch wrote: > > > As a first step, I did small upgrade, so now I run FreeBSD > > > 9.3-STABLE #0 r284695: Mon Jun 22 08:55:29 CEST 2015. > > > > > > I still see the issue, but I found simpler workaround when bad state > > > ocurs - using > > > > > > pfctl -k <ip.of.affected.client> > > > pfctl -K <ip.of.affected.client> > > > > > > in this order seems to remedy the issue for this one affected client > > > without affecting other clients. This still does not solve the > > > problem, just eases the reaction. > > > > How is your NAT rule defined? I had a closer look at the way I did > > it: > > > > nat on vlan46 from 10.8.0.0/15 to !<on-our-net> -> xx.xx.xx.xx/24 > > round-robin sticky-address > > > > I think you may be missing the "round-robin" that spreads the mapping > > over your pool. The manual says that when more than 1 address is > > specified, round-robin is the only pool type allowed, it does not > > say that when more than 1 address is specified this is the default > > pool option. > > > > Thanks for hint, however, this is not the case I think. My definition is > > nat on $if_ext from <net_int> to any -> $pool_ext round-robin > sticky-address > > where <net_int> contains contains some /24 segments from 10.0.0.0/8 > range and one /24 and one /15 segment from 172.16.0.0/12 range, > $pool_ext is one /23 public segment. > > > You can check your state table to see if it is indeed round-robin. > > > > #pfctl -s sta |grep " (" > > ... > > all tcp a.b.c.d:53802 (10.0.0.220:42808) -> 41.246.55.66:24 > > ESTABLISHED:ESTABLISHED all tcp a.b.c.e:60794 (10.0.0.38:47825) -> > > 216.58.223.10:443 ESTABLISHED:FIN_WAIT_2 > > > > If all your addresses "a.b.c.X" are the same, it's not round-robin > > and that's your problem. > > > > Well, this is something I do not fully understand. If my pool were > a.b.c.0/24, then what you wrote could not be any other way - I think > this is not what you meant. Or did you think there will be only one IP > used? That's definitelly not the case, I see many IPs from my /23 > segment here. > > One strange thing occured, however - it looks like if one IP from > this /23 range gets used, trouble occurs. I do pfctl -k and pfctl -K > for this address and all is well again. As long as this one IP is not > used, everything works. When it gets used again, voila, trouble again. > > Can you check if you are reaching the limits on source entries set limit src-nodes 2000 sets the maximum number of entries in the memory pool used for tracking source IP addresses (generated by the sticky-address and src.track options) to 2000. > As this does not occur that fast, I need to check every now and then, > and I am checking the other way too, but it is really annoying if it > hits any customer. > > Regards, > Milan > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]" > > -- > Ermal > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
