Hello, On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Jason Stubbs wrote: > > > * IP_VS_CONN_F_BYPASS - what is this? > > > > IP_VS_CONN_F_BYPASS is used for transparent proxy setups when > > real server (cache server) is not present and we should forward the > > traffic to original destination. The idea is request still to be served. > > In such case IPVS traffic uses the original destination instead of real > > server. > > Not tested yet. I assume I just need to add a real server with the same > IP/port as the virtual server? Not sure, may be IP:PORT of LVS's uplink gateway. In such setups clients are usually internal hosts using LVS box as gateway. > > - Netfilter can re-route sometimes (eg. after mangle), it can cause > > properly routed LVS-DR traffic to fail. > > I don't understand exactly what you mean by this. It could only happen if the > user sets rules that causes it to happen right? May be the things have changed, not sure. The problem is when functions like ip_route_me_harder() are called for packets that are already forwarded by IPVS (skb has attached route for the real server). In such case skb still shows VIP as iph->daddr and a rerouting can result in local route. But latest kernels may be reroute only in LOCAL_OUT, so this is not a problem. As for the double POST_ROUTING log entries ... I'm checking this NF_HOOK_THRESH call with NF_IP_PRI_LAST. For me, it looks like net/netfilter/core.c:nf_iterate() calls only handlers when elem->priority >= hook_thresh. But you put ip_vs_in() at the same priority NF_IP_PRI_LAST. May be ip_vs_in() is called twice? Also, if ip_vs_in() is called after SNAT I'm curious, isn't ip_vs_ftp working with DNAT-ed skb (if you have netfilter ftp nat module) ? May be things don't break because IPVS is careful not to damage packets it can not recognize. But do we work properly with the FTP commands in ip_vs_ftp_in(), do we create properly FTP data connections in IPVS? I assume you test both passive and active FTP. If the goal is -m state to work correctly, are you sure the IPVS FTP data connections work correctly (as RELATED traffic)? Regards -- Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
