From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Engelhardt Subject: Re: Dropped fin acks (iptables + lvs) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:17:59 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: References: <163461433411784@lycos-europe.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <163461433411784@lycos-europe.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q? Patrik=20Kar=E9n?= Cc: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org >I am running iptables and lvs on two boxes loadbalancing http[s] and ssh traffic to two real servers. >Everything is working just fine from the users point of view. However, >I keep seeing a lot of dropped packets of type ack/fin and ack/rst in >my iptables log. Seems like the connection tracking isn't working the >way I expect it to. The iptables config in short is: RST-ACK is received as a response to SYN to a closed port, and hence, is not part of a connection. >#This is the rule that should allow established connections, right? >$IPTABLES -A Firewall-INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT >Jan 24 16:46:11 10.0.1.107 kernel: drop: IN=eth0 OUT= >MAC=00:15:c5:ee:48:a7:00:04:de:18:18:00:08:00 SRC= >DST=<$VIP1_e> LEN=52 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=49 ID=28407 PROTO=TCP >SPT=48404 DPT=443 WINDOW=65535 RES=0x00 ACK FIN URGP=0 The FIN-ACK case however looks worth looking into. I'd say do it without -m limit and see if _every_ connection ends up that way. Also use tcpdump to match sessions. -`J' --