Multi WAN seems to be poorly implemented
-
Did you edit your previous post?….
AnyhowI applied those 2 patches (I wasn't able to create a patch file from it, but downloaded the 2 raw files with fetch)
I set the timeout to 3600 seconds which should be sufficient.
If this works I will have the best of both worlds (equal spreading of bandwidth and stability)Tomorrow I will know if it does its job better.
-
Tomorrow I will know if it does its job better.
So, what's your impression of the new src.track feature (i.e. sticky with a timeout)?
And have you tested how it handles failure of one of the two gateways? (see my question in the previous page)
TIA.
-
Because there was still one site that gave problems I didn't dare to post immediately.
But I never had any problems accessing the 2 hosting servers of our own.I think it's working…
I assume it's properly working when your line goes down. The behaviour will depend a lot on what it should do with the current states (flush them or keep them open).I just updated to 2.01, so I needed to patch it again.
I now did it in a way that is easy to share with the community.
It's a bit less work now....I do think it should have been backported to 2.01
Cheers and happy new year
cd /usr/local/www cp -p system_advanced_misc.php system_advanced_misc.php.2.01 patch system_advanced_misc.php <system_advanced_misc.php.patch<br>cd /etc/inc cp -p filter.inc filter.inc.201 patch filter.inc <filter.inc.patch< pre="">/etc/inc/filter.inc.patch281a282,284
if (isset($config['system']['lb_use_sticky']) && is_numeric($config['system']['srctrack']) && ($config['system']['srctrack'] > 0))
$rules .= "set timeout src.track {$config['system']['srctrack']}\n";/usr/local/www/system_advanced_misc.php.patch58a59
$pconfig['srctrack'] = $config['system']['srctrack'];
105c106
< if($_POST['lb_use_sticky'] == "yes")
if($_POST['lb_use_sticky'] == "yes") {
107c108,109
< else
$config['system']['srctrack'] = $_POST['srctrack'];
} else
192a195,200
function sticky_checked(obj) {
if (obj.checked)
jQuery('#srctrack').attr('disabled',false);
else
jQuery('#srctrack').attr('disabled','true');
}
269c277
< />
onClick="sticky_checked(this)" />
278a287,292" class="formfld unknown" >
> "By default this is 0, so source tracking is removed as soon as the state expires. " .
"Setting this timeout higher will cause the source/destination relationship to persist for longer periods of time."); ?>
387c401
< --- -
I upgraded to 2.01 and re-applied the patch….
It's not working :-(I am getting kicked from our hosting server from time to time. 'tcpdump' is running at the same time and as you can see it all of a sudden switches to the other connection.
This is not sticky at all......I did think it was working properly before I upgraded, although I did get some strange behaviour on other servers....
Can I check if srctrack is really set properly?
I have little knowledge of FreeBSD / pfiltertcpdump -i eth0 -n 'port 8443'
14:33:33.041319 IP 89.250.179.117.29754 > 46.243.24.60.pcsync-https: P 1949:2786(837) ack 2746 win 16425 14:33:33.041658 IP 46.243.24.60.pcsync-https > 89.250.179.117.29754: . 2746:4206(1460) ack 2786 win 96 14:33:33.041676 IP 46.243.24.60.pcsync-https > 89.250.179.117.29754: P 4206:4254(48) ack 2786 win 96 14:33:33.092396 IP 89.250.179.117.19784 > 46.243.24.60.pcsync-https: . ack 98209 win 16425 14:33:33.102207 IP 89.250.179.117.19784 > 46.243.24.60.pcsync-https: P 8928:9765(837) ack 98209 win 16425 14:33:33.102225 IP 89.250.180.164.13586 > 46.243.24.60.pcsync-https: S 929859587:929859587(0) win 8192 <mss 1460,nop,wscale="" 2,nop,nop,sackok="">14:33:33.102315 IP 46.243.24.60.pcsync-https > 89.250.180.164.13586: S 1120370230:1120370230(0) ack 929859588 win 5840 <mss 7="" 1460,nop,nop,sackok,nop,wscale="">14:33:33.102667 IP 46.243.24.60.pcsync-https > 89.250.179.117.19784: . 98209:99669(1460) ack 9765 win 228 14:33:33.102681 IP 46.243.24.60.pcsync-https > 89.250.179.117.19784: P 99669:99685(16) ack 9765 win 228 14:33:33.108718 IP 89.250.180.164.38584 > 46.243.24.60.pcsync-https: S 1307358421:1307358421(0) win 8192 <mss 1460,nop,wscale="" 2,nop,nop,sackok="">14:33:33.108751 IP 46.243.24.60.pcsync-https > 89.250.180.164.38584: S 2972341496:2972341496(0) ack 1307358422 win 5840 <mss 7="" 1460,nop,nop,sackok,nop,wscale="">14:33:33.114151 IP 89.250.180.164.16897 > 46.243.24.60.pcsync-https: S 2970339047:2970339047(0) win 8192 <mss 1460,nop,wscale="" 2,nop,nop,sackok="">14:33:33.114183 IP 46.243.24.60.pcsync-https > 89.250.180.164.16897: S 1688705918:1688705918(0) ack 2970339048 win 5840 <mss 7="" 1460,nop,nop,sackok,nop,wscale="">14:33:33.120833 IP 89.250.180.164.48746 > 46.243.24.60.pcsync-https: S 794117234:794117234(0) win 8192 <mss 1460,nop,wscale="" 2,nop,nop,sackok="">14:33:33.120865 IP 46.243.24.60.pcsync-https > 89.250.180.164.48746: S 3021423565:3021423565(0) ack 794117235 win 5840 <mss 7="" 1460,nop,nop,sackok,nop,wscale="">14:33:33.126519 IP 89.250.180.164.52196 > 46.243.24.60.pcsync-https: S 1506349235:1506349235(0) win 8192 <mss 1460,nop,wscale="" 2,nop,nop,sackok="">14:33:33.126550 IP 46.243.24.60.pcsync-https > 89.250.180.164.52196: S 3390423845:3390423845(0) ack 1506349236 win 5840</mss></mss></mss></mss></mss></mss></mss></mss></mss>again…. can't this feature be backported?????
-
Can I check if srctrack is really set properly?
You can check if there is a rule. From shell prompt run:
pfctl -sr | fgrep src.track
-
Also check:
pfctl -stTo see the current timer values.
-
-
The fun thing about git is each commit is a patch. If you have the commit id, you have the patch. If you do
git show 4573641589d50718b544b778cea864cfd725078aThen you get something usable as a patch file.
commit 4573641589d50718b544b778cea864cfd725078a Author: jim-p <jimp@pfsense.org>Date: Tue Nov 15 16:28:45 2011 -0500 Add a gui field to set the source tracking timeout for sticky connections. diff --git a/etc/inc/filter.inc b/etc/inc/filter.inc index 29864df..fdd43b7 100644 --- a/etc/inc/filter.inc +++ b/etc/inc/filter.inc @@ -280,6 +280,8 @@ function filter_configure_sync($delete_states_if_needed = true) { /* User defined maximum table entries in Advanced menu. */ $rules .= "set limit table-entries {$config['system']['maximumtableentries']}\n"; } + if (isset($config['system']['lb_use_sticky']) && is_numeric($config['system']['srctrack']) && ($config['system']['srctrack'] > 0)) + $rules .= "set timeout src.track {$config['system']['srctrack']}\n"; // Configure flowtable support if enabled. flowtable_configure(); diff --git a/usr/local/www/system_advanced_misc.php b/usr/local/www/system_advanced_misc.php index d25c96d..e1da772 100644 --- a/usr/local/www/system_advanced_misc.php +++ b/usr/local/www/system_advanced_misc.php @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ $pconfig['proxyuser'] = $config['system']['proxyuser']; $pconfig['proxypass'] = $config['system']['proxypass']; $pconfig['harddiskstandby'] = $config['system']['harddiskstandby']; $pconfig['lb_use_sticky'] = isset($config['system']['lb_use_sticky']); +$pconfig['srctrack'] = $config['system']['srctrack']; $pconfig['gw_switch_default'] = isset($config['system']['gw_switch_default']); $pconfig['preferoldsa_enable'] = isset($config['ipsec']['preferoldsa']); $pconfig['racoondebug_enable'] = isset($config['ipsec']['racoondebug']); @@ -102,9 +103,10 @@ if ($_POST) { else unset($config['system']['proxypass']); - if($_POST['lb_use_sticky'] == "yes") + if($_POST['lb_use_sticky'] == "yes") { $config['system']['lb_use_sticky'] = true; - else + $config['system']['srctrack'] = $_POST['srctrack']; + } else unset($config['system']['lb_use_sticky']); if($_POST['gw_switch_default'] == "yes") @@ -190,6 +192,12 @@ include("head.inc"); print_info_box($savemsg); ?></jimp@pfsense.org> -
Should there really be any output for
pfctl -sr | grep src.track ???
And what would this output be?
I can't find anything wrong with my /etc/inc/filter.inc nor the /usr/local/www/system_advanced_misc.phpReplacing "/usr/local/www/system_advanced_misc.php" with the 2.10 version doesn't make a difference….
Did you apply the patch?
I really thought it was working in my 2.0 setup.
-
If pftctl -st shows anything except 0s for src.track, then it's working. 0s (zero seconds) is the default value of src.track.
pfctl -sr wouldn't show it, but it would be in /tmp/rules.debug
-
I currently have a situation in which I'm sure that I'm not having a continuing output over the same interface…
This has been proven by doing a tcpdump on the target server...
A new connection to that same server should go over the same interface.....That's the behaviour one needs in a multi-WAN setup (I believe it should be that way always).
If not, you'll get kicked....I don't understand how one can live with a multi-WAN if all of a sudden it suddenly decides to talk using a different interface....
This is asking for trouble and will result in people getting constantly kicked...
I therefore don't understand why this subject is treated with such a low priority....Unless I'm totally wrong, of course...
But no-one has said that thus far either.... -
I don't quite get how sticky works. If I analyzed correctly, with sticky enabled multi-thread http downloading or usenet downloading won't be lOad balanced at all?
-
It's because you only look at it from your point of view.
If you want multiple connections to the same server, this isn't for you….I'm using pfsense in multi-LAN, multi-WAN environment....
traffic will then be equally spread over the different intranet/Internet connections, but once a source address is using a certain target, I don't want it to switch suddenly.Many targets don't like this and you will get kicked constantly from websites because you're all of a sudden coming from somewhere else....
-
kevindd992002,
When you have sessions(many sites nowadays has) stick must be working to do not get random access erros.
-
But about the stickyness….
Is the SRC/DST relation only on IP-level or is it SRC:port/DST:port?
If the port is included as well it's not really a solution for this problem....
If a SRC-IP/DST-IP relation is established I want it to follow the same route from then on...The WAN-IP's should be considered as endpoints... once the traffic is on the Internet it may of course follow different routes.
-
I don't understand how one can live with a multi-WAN if all of a sudden it suddenly decides to talk using a different interface….
This is asking for trouble and will result in people getting constantly kicked...
I therefore don't understand why this subject is treated with such a low priority....Most sites are smart enough to handle this, through some combination of session tracking/cookie tracking and whatnot. Only certain sites will freak out of the IP changes during a session.
Note that a session is different than a connection. A specific connection will always stay on a certain WAN, as long as the browser/client holds it open. If the browser closes a connection and/or opens a new one, then that one could go across another WAN.
Switching IPs in the middle of a connection isn't that uncommon, consider a client on 3G/Wifi/Wired that could switch between connections automatically in some cases, or if someone roams between two different APs connected to two different WANs.
-
But about the stickyness….
Is the SRC/DST relation only on IP-level or is it SRC:port/DST:port?
If the port is included as well it's not really a solution for this problem....
If a SRC-IP/DST-IP relation is established I want it to follow the same route from then on...The WAN-IP's should be considered as endpoints... once the traffic is on the Internet it may of course follow different routes.
The "stickyness" is between the client IP and a gateway. It has nothing to do with the destination.
So if ClientA makes a connection over WAN2, then everything it does (until its states all expire) will go over WAN2, it will not load balance.
If ClientB makes a connection over WAN1, then it will use WAN1 for everything (until its states all expire). -
Alright, so as long as sticky is enabled I don't need to make a firewall rule that will route HTTPS traffic through my failover route?
I know basic networking but don't understand most of the things you guys mentioned. I use multi-WAN right now by simply making a "route" to have two tiers and directing LAN traffic (except HTTPs) though that route, at least that's what I know how to config in pfsense 2.0.1. When I download through HTTP, say a driver from Nvidia's website, I use Internet Download Manager and it will start multi-thread downloading which will maximized the speed available to me given by my two modems. What will I get if I enable sticky?
-
Alright, so as long as sticky is enabled I don't need to make a firewall rule that will route HTTPS traffic through my failover route?
True.
I know basic networking but don't understand most of the things you guys mentioned. I use multi-WAN right now by simply making a "route" to have two tiers and directing LAN traffic (except HTTPs) though that route, at least that's what I know how to config in pfsense 2.0.1. When I download through HTTP, say a driver from Nvidia's website, I use Internet Download Manager and it will start multi-thread downloading which will maximized the speed available to me given by my two modems. What will I get if I enable sticky?
That wouldn't do what it does now. All those connections from that single client would go over a single WAN. It wouldn't load balance.
-
Alright, so as long as sticky is enabled I don't need to make a firewall rule that will route HTTPS traffic through my failover route?
True.
I know basic networking but don't understand most of the things you guys mentioned. I use multi-WAN right now by simply making a "route" to have two tiers and directing LAN traffic (except HTTPs) though that route, at least that's what I know how to config in pfsense 2.0.1. When I download through HTTP, say a driver from Nvidia's website, I use Internet Download Manager and it will start multi-thread downloading which will maximized the speed available to me given by my two modems. What will I get if I enable sticky?
Thanks for that info. So in essence, multi-thread downloading does not work while sticky is enabled? Is this true for all cases?
That wouldn't do what it does now. All those connections from that single client would go over a single WAN. It wouldn't load balance.
