Hello Timothy Aaron has told me that you are in AWS and this being the case I hope ipip does indeed work with my hints.
It is worth noting that I know in AWS we can not do Layer4 DR however with the help of OpenVSwitch I know 100% that its possible to do Layer4 DR to any real server connected with either a VXLAN or GRE tunnel . I have personally done this in my private service and stretched a VXLAN from AWS to my private lab and other remote datacenters where my real servers reside. Andruw Smalley Loadbalancer.org Ltd. www.loadbalancer.org +1 888 867 9504 / +44 (0)330 380 1064 asmal...@loadbalancer.org Leave a Review | Deployment Guides | Blog On 7 November 2017 at 16:51, Timothy R. Weiand <timothy.wei...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ooohhhh!! Let me try this. > > Thanks for the directions, > -Timothy > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 1:55 PM Andrew Smalley <asmal...@loadbalancer.org> > wrote: > >> Hi Timothy, >> >> I've been testing ipip (Tun mode) and I have it working, >> >> I note that the Weak ES Model needs to be accounted for and the tunl0 >> should be a /32 not a /24 as you have it on the real server. >> >> ip addr add 192.168.200.11/24 brd 192.168.200.11 dev tunl1 >> >> becomes >> >> ip addr add dev tunl1 192.168.200.11/32 brd 192.168.200.11 dev tunl1 >> >> >> I also have this in my /etc/sysctl.conf >> >> net.ipv4.conf.all.arp_ignore=1 >> net.ipv4.conf.eth0.arp_ignore=1 >> net.ipv4.conf.tunl1.arp_ignore=1 >> net.ipv4.conf.all.arp_announce=2 >> net.ipv4.conf.eth0.arp_announce=2 >> net.ipv4.conf.tunl1.arp_announce=2 >> >> net.ipv4.conf.all.log_martians=1 >> net.ipv4.conf.default.log_martians=1 >> >> And I ran this script portion to enable forwarding and disable the >> rp_filter >> >> if [ $1 = "tunl1" ]; then >> echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/tunl0/forwarding >> echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/tunl0/rp_filter >> fi >> >> >> This is with a 4.4.49 Kernel >> >> I hope this help you >> >> >> Andruw Smalley >> >> Loadbalancer.org Ltd. >> >> www.loadbalancer.org >> +1 888 867 9504 / +44 (0)330 380 1064 >> asmal...@loadbalancer.org >> >> Leave a Review | Deployment Guides | Blog >> >> >> On 22 August 2017 at 12:43, Timothy R. Weiand <timothy.wei...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
