Aaron: I was able to get LVS-TUN working in between subnets in AWS if the real server is a 3.x kernel (RHEL to be specific). I had to set the destination side of the tunnel and the address on that interface to the VIP. Then, I configured unbound to listen for the VIP address.
We are working with RedHat to get the 4.x kernels fixed. But, no timeframe on that fix. FYI - We are going to work towards open sourcing our work so that everyone can see exactly what we have done. -Timothy On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:56 AM Aaron West <aa...@loadbalancer.org> wrote: > Hi Timothy, > > What you had working was it in AWS or VMWare? > > I've pretty much given up trying to get the spoofed reply traffic back > out of AWS it gets dropped always with either DR mode or TUN unless I > send it back via the director and that case I may as well do NAT mode > instead... > > My understanding is that when egress traffic hits their edge they > check the source matches the instance it came from and if it doesn't > the packet gets dropped. However, all works fine if the client is in > the same VPC so it doesn't need to go out past the edge of the VPC. > > Just interested if you found the same in your testing? > Aaron West > > Loadbalancer.org > > www.loadbalancer.org > +1 888 867 9504 / +44 (0)330 380 1064 > aa...@loadbalancer.org > > LEAVE A REVIEW | DEPLOYMENT GUIDES | BLOG > > > On 10 August 2017 at 18:08, Timothy R. Weiand <timothy.wei...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Julian: > > > > Good news and bad news: this guidance helped me get LVS-TUN working with > a > > 3.10.0 kernel. But, I am not able to use the same configuration to get > > 4.4.x,4.8.x or 4.12.x working. We are working on doing further analysis > to > > ensure it is kernel dependent and not distribution dependent. I hope to > > find the kernel version that this configuration stops working. > > > > Note on 4.x machines: If we do not have the correct ip assigned to the > > tunnel interface we can see traffic on that interface. But, if we use the > > correct VIP then we no longer see the traffic. > > > > I will keep you updated as I find information out. > > > > Thanks! > > -Timothy > > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:25 PM Julian Anastasov <j...@ssi.bg> wrote: > > > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017, Timothy R. Weiand wrote: > >> > >> > I am building a DR-TUN configuration to load balance DNS traffic. My > >> issue > >> > is with the real servers: the ipip packet get unwrapped and appears on > >> the > >> > tunnel interface and becomes a martian. Also, I have not been able to > >> > determine how to bind to the tunnel interface to capture these > packets. I > >> > have verified details with tcpdump/dmesg. All my configuration is > >> scripted > >> > to ensure reproducibility. tcpdumps below do not show real DNS > traffic; > >> > using netcat to send text. > >> > > >> > Much more detail can be supplied, please request it. > >> > > >> > Configuration: > >> > > >> > ============== > >> > > >> > - All machines are currently Debian 9 (4.9.30-2+deb9u2) > >> > > >> > - Client: 192.168.200.10 > >> > > >> > - Director: 192.168.200.11 > >> > > >> > - Real Server: 192.168.200.12 > >> > > >> > - No VIP: I am using the IP address for my director interface - > >> > 192.168.200.11 > >> > > >> > > >> > Director Configuration: > >> > > >> > ================== > >> > > >> > vagrant@debian-9-lb:~$ sudo ipvsadm -Ln > >> > > >> > IP Virtual Server version 1.2.1 (size=4096) > >> > > >> > Prot LocalAddress:Port Scheduler Flags > >> > > >> > -> RemoteAddress:Port Forward Weight ActiveConn InActConn > >> > > >> > UDP 192.168.200.11:53 rr > >> > > >> > -> 192.168.200.12:53 Tunnel 1 0 0 > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Real Server: > >> > > >> > ============ > >> > > >> > # modprobe ipip > >> > > >> > # echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward > >> > > >> > # ip tunnel add tunl1 mode ipip ttl 32 local 192.168.200.12 remote > >> > 192.168.200.11 > >> > > >> > # ip link set tunl1 up arp off > >> > > >> > # echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/all/rp_filter > >> > > >> > # echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/default/rp_filter > >> > > >> > # echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/tunl0/rp_filter > >> > > >> > # echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/tunl1/rp_filter > >> > >> tunl1/rp_filter=2 is ignored if there are no > >> IPv4 addresses configured on tunl1, you can see > >> __fib_validate_source() for reference: > >> > >> if (no_addr) > >> goto last_resort; > >> > >> As result, packets are dropped as martians due to rpf=2. > >> > >> To check if packets are dropped by routing try: > >> > >> ip route get from 192.168.200.10 to 192.168.200.11 iif tunl1 > >> > >> Here is small howto for TUN (outdated): > >> > >> http://ja.ssi.bg/TUN-HOWTO.txt > >> > >> > vagrant@debian-9-dns:~$ sudo tcpdump -e -n -s 0 -i tunl1 -vv > >> > > >> > tcpdump: listening on tunl1, link-type RAW (Raw IP), capture size > 262144 > >> > bytes > >> > > >> > 10:16:13.919646 ip: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 63545, offset 0, flags [DF], > >> proto > >> > UDP (17), length 40) > >> > > >> > 192.168.200.10.51149 > 192.168.200.11.53: [udp sum ok] 26226 > >> updateMA+ > >> > [b2&3=0x6f6d] [27753a] [11619q] [25966n] [29706au][|domain] > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > If I add an IP address to the interface the packet never reaches tunl1 > >> > > >> > # ip addr add 192.168.200.11/24 brd 192.168.200.11 dev tunl1 > >> > >> Try with (note mask /32): > >> > >> ip addr add 192.168.200.11/32 dev tunl1 > >> > >> as shown in LVS HOWTO (8.3): > >> > >> http://www.austintek.com/LVS/LVS-HOWTO/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO.LVS-Tun.html > >> > >> > Notes: > >> > > >> > ====== > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > LVS-DR was not an option because the real servers will be in different > >> > subnets (I was able to get LVS-DR working though). > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I am looking for advice on how to better understand or resolve this > >> issue. > >> > Or, who would be better to answer this question. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I have groked as many articles on how to setup this configuration as I > >> can. > >> > And, I have read a good deal of the archives of this mailing list. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Linux distributions I have tried are Debian, Ubuntu and Amazon linux. > >> This > >> > is been tested on both AWS and VMware fusion. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > ------ > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I have a feeling I am missing something simple... > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks! > >> > > >> > -Timothy > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> -- > >> Julian Anastasov <j...@ssi.bg> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at: > > http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/ > > > > LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@LinuxVirtualServer.org > > Send requests to lvs-users-requ...@linuxvirtualserver.org > > or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users > > _______________________________________________ > Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at: > http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/ > > LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@LinuxVirtualServer.org > Send requests to lvs-users-requ...@linuxvirtualserver.org > or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users > _______________________________________________ Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at: http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@LinuxVirtualServer.org Send requests to lvs-users-requ...@linuxvirtualserver.org or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
