Hi Andrei,
I've fixed this recently, please see
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2579
As a workaround you can add routing rules manually. On the PR, there is a link
to a comment that explains the issue and suggests manual workaround. Let me
know if that works for you.
Regards.
From: Andrei Mikhailovsky
Sent: Friday, 20 April, 2:21 PM
Subject: Upgrade from ACS 4.9.X to 4.11.0 broke VPC source NAT
To: dev
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
rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrei Mikhailovsky" > To: "users" >
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" >> To:
"users" >> 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 >> >> >> >> >>
>> ________________________________ >> From: Andrei Mikhailovsky >> 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" >>> To: "users" >>> 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" >>>> To: "users" >>>> 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" >>>>> To: "users" >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
________________________________ >>>>> From: Andrei Mikhailovsky >>>>> 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 >>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > >
> > > @shapeblue
