Hi Andrei,
Next step is to do some tcpdumping on the two VRs. Set some ping’s going and
check:
Private NIC: tcpdump -i eth0 icmp
Public NIC: tcpdump -i eth2 icmp
That way you should be able to see how far your traffic reaches.
Regards,
Dag Sonstebo
Cloud Architect
ShapeBlue
On 23/02/2018, 16:17, "Andrei Mikhailovsky" <and...@arhont.com.INVALID> wrote:
Bump.
Any ideas anyone? This issue is really annoying.
Thanks
dag.sonst...@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" <users@cloudstack.apache.org>, "users"
<users@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 February, 2018 22:10:25
> Subject: Re: VR routing issues in Advanced Mode
> Dag,
>
>
>
>
> Yeah, we have egress traffic enabled. We also use VPCs on some of the
networks
> and they are also effected by this issue along with None VPC networks.
>
>
>
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
>
>
> Andrei Mikhailovsky
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Dag Sonstebo
>
>
> Sent: Wednesday 21 February, 18:30
>
>
> Subject: Re: VR routing issues in Advanced Mode
>
>
> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Andrei,
>
>
>
>
> Understand. To get all the obvious things out the way – have you allowed
egress
> traffic on the two networks (you mention ACLs which we only use on VPCs
and
> basic networks)?
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Dag Sonstebo
>
>
> Cloud Architect
>
>
> ShapeBlue
>
>
>
>
> On 21/02/2018, 14:51, "Andrei Mikhailovsky" <and...@arhont.com.INVALID>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hi Dag,
>
>
>
>
> Please see my comments below:
>
>
>
>
>> Hi Andrei,
>
>
>>
>
>
>> You’re confusing the matter with your masking of public IP ranges. You
said you
>
>
>> have “2 x Public IP ranges with /26 netmask” – but since you are masking
them
>
>
>> out with X’s your email doesn’t make sense. If all the X’s are the same
then a
>
>
>> .10 and a .20 IP address would be on the same /26 network.
>
>
>>
>
>
>> I will assume that you do in fact have 2 x 26-bit networks, e.g.:
>
>
>>
>
>
>> 192.168.0.0/26 – with default gateway 192.168.0.1
>
>
>> 192.168.0.64/26 – with default gateway 192.168.0.65
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That is correct. I do have two separate /26 networks similar to what
you've
> described above. However, one /26 is used for direct public IP service
> offering, where VRs are not involved in networking at all and the second
/26 is
> used for the service offering where VRs are used to provide the networking
> function.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> If your two guest networks have VRs on separate public IP ranges you
will have
>
>
>> e.g.
>
>
>>
>
>
>> VR1: public IP 192.168.0.10
>
>
>> VR2: public IP 192.168.0.70
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nope, the guest vms with VRs that can't talk to each other are on the
same /26
> network. (in your example that would be on the same 192.168.0.0/26)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> For a VM hosted behind VR1 to reach a service NAT’ed on VR2 you need to
set up
>
>
>> routing and possibly firewalling on the data centre device which handles
the
>
>
>> default gateway for the two networks – i.e. the top of rack switch or
router
>
>
>> which hosts default gateways 192.168.0.1 and 192.168.0.65. The fact that
you
>
>
>> can reach services on both networks from outside this range makes sense.
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
> These has been set up and vms between separate /26 networks CAN talk to
each
> other. The VMs on the same /26 network that doesn't use the VR service
can also
> talk to each other. The problem with VMs on the same /26 that use VRs
can't
> talk to each other using their public IP addresses.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> So once you have fixed this you will have VM1 > VR1 >
DC_SWITCH_OR_ROUTER > VR2
>
>
>> > VM2.
>
>
>>
>
>
>>
>
>
>> Regards,
>
>
>> Dag Sonstebo
>
>
>> Cloud Architect
>
>
>> ShapeBlue
>
>
>>
>
>
>> On 21/02/2018, 12:27, "Andrei Mikhailovsky" <and...@arhont.com.INVALID>
wrote:
>
>
>>
>
>
>> Hello
>
>
>>
>
>
>> Could someone help me to identify the routing issues that we have. The
problem
>
>
>> is the traffic from different guest networks can not reach each other
via the
>
>
>> public IPs.
>
>
>>
>
>
>> Here is my ACS setup:
>
>
>> ACS 4.9.3.0 (both management and agents)
>
>
>> KVM Hypervisor based on Ubuntu 16.04
>
>
>> Ceph as primary storage. NFS as secondary storage
>
>
>> Advanced Networking with vlan separation
>
>
>> 2 x Public IP ranges with /26 netmask.
>
>
>>
>
>
>>
>
>
>>
>
>
>> Here is an example when routing DOES NOT work:
>
>
>>
>
>
>> Case 1 - Advanced Networking, vlan separation, VRs route all traffic and
provide
>
>
>> all networking services (dhcp, fw, port forwarding, load balancing, etc)
>
>
>>
>
>
>> Guest Network 1:
>
>
>>
>
>
>> Public IP: XXX.XXX.XXX.10/26
>
>
>> Private IP range: 10.1.1.0/24
>
>
>> guest vm1 IP: 10.1.1.100/24
>
>
>>
>
>
>> Guest Network 2:
>
>
>> Public IP: XXX.XXX.XXX.20/26
>
>
>> Private IP range: 10.1.1.0/24
>
>
>> guest vm2 IP: 10.1.1.200/24
>
>
>>
>
>
>>
>
>
>> I've created ACLs on both guest networks to allow traffic from 0.0.0.0/0
on port
>
>
>> 80. I've created the port forwarding rules to forward port 80 from public
>
>
>> XXX.XXX.XXX.10 and XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.20 onto 10.1.1.100 and 10.1.1.200
>
>
>> respectively.
>
>
>>
>
>
>> This setup works perfectly well when I am initiating the connections from
>
>
>> outside of our CloudStack. However, vm2 can't reach vm1 on port 80 using
the
>
>
>> public IP XXX.XXX.XXX.10 and vice versa, vm1 can't reach vm2 on public IP
>
>
>> XXX.XXX.XXX.20.
>
>
>>
>
>
>>
>
>
>>
>
>
>>
>
>
>> Here is an example when the routing DOES work:
>
>
>>
>
>
>> Case 2 - Advanced Networking, vlan separation, VRs are not used. Public
IPs are
>
>
>> given directly to a guest vm
>
>
>>
>
>
>> Guest Network 1:
>
>
>>
>
>
>> guest vm1 Public IP: XXX.XXX.XXX.100/26
>
>
>>
>
>
>> Guest Network 2:
>
>
>>
>
>
>> guest vm2 Public IP: XXX.XXX.XXX.110/26
>
>
>>
>
>
>> In the Case 2, the guest vm has a public IP address directly assigned to
its
>
>
>> network interface. VRs are not used for this networking. Each guest has
a fw
>
>
>> rule to allow incoming traffic on port 80 from 0.0.0.0/0. Both vm1 and
vm2 can
>
>
>> access each other on port 80. Also, vms from Case 1 above can access
port 80 on
>
>
>> vms from Case 2, similarly, vms from Case 2 can access port 80 on vms
from Case
>
>
>> 1.
>
>
>>
>
>
>>
>
>
>>
>
>
>> So, it seems that the rules on the VR in Case 1 do not allow traffic that
>
>
>> originates from other VRs within the same public network range. The
trace route
>
>
>> shows the last hop being the VR's private IP address. How do I change
that
>
>
>> behaviour and fix the networking issue?
>
>
>>
>
>
>> Thanks
>
>
>>
>
>
>> Andrei
>
>
>>
>
>
>>
>
>
>>
>
>
>> dag.sonst...@shapeblue.com
>
>
>> www.shapeblue.com
>
>
>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
>
>
>> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> dag.sonst...@shapeblue.com
>
>
> www.shapeblue.com
>
>
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
>
>
> @shapeblue
