Floating IP responds from wrong VLAN/trunk
I have a routing issue I can't seem to figure out the cause of. I have two trunks defined, T1 on 1.1 and 1.2, and T2 on 1.3 and 1.4. Both trunks are connected to the same switch (on the same VLAN on the switch). I have two VLANs tied to the respective trunks, V1 on T1 and V2 on T2. I have two traffic groups, TG1 and TG2, with masquerade MACs. I have two routing domains, 0 and 255. I have local self IPs defined on the respective VLANs, say 10.0.0.3 on V1 and 10.0.255.3%255 on V2. I have floating self IPs, such as 10.0.0.2 on V1 and TG1, and 10.0.255.2%255 on V2 and TG2. When I ping 10.0.0.3 and 10.0.255.3 I get proper responses. No problems there. When I ping 10.0.0.2 I proper responses. When I ARP 10.0.255.2, it resolves to the MAC of TG2 and the switch it's connected to routes that MAC to T2. However, when I ping 10.0.255.2 only the first response comes back - but it comes back from T1 and with the MAC of TG1. When the second (and further) ping is sent, it's consequently (due to MAC learning) sent to T1 - which is not accepting it. Why is the ping response sent back from T1 when the request was sent to T2? Why is the floating IP in V2, TG2 and routing domain 255 not responding from the same interface as it receives the ICMP package on?
LTM source based routing, different default gateway for each Vlan
Hi all, I would like to get my routing assumptions confirmed by somebody who already has the experience with source based routing on LTM. Or in case the assumption is not correct, I would be happy to get help with it. Imagine following situation. Servers reside in Vlan A and Vlan B behind a firewall. Each Vlan has a subinterface on the firewall and the firewall's IP is the default gateway for particular Vlan. This is clear, no need for any special routing: | | ----------------------------------- | FIREWALL | | | | 10.0.1.1 10.0.2.1 | ----------------------------------- | | | | VLAN A VLAN B | | | | SERVERS SERVERS 10.0.1.60 10.0.2.60 10.0.1.61 10.0.2.61 Now I need to be able to do some load balancing in both Vlans so I introduce LTM in the following way: | | ----------------------------------- | FIREWALL | | | | 10.0.1.1 10.0.2.1 | ----------------------------------- | | | | VLAN A VLAN B | | | | --------------------------------------- | VIP:10.0.1.15 VIP:10.0.2.15 | | F5 LTM | | | | SNAT:10.0.1.25 SNAT:10.0.2.25 | --------------------------------------- | | | | VLAN A VLAN B | | | | SERVERS SERVERS 10.0.1.60 10.0.2.60 10.0.1.61 10.0.2.61 So the LTM (VIP, SNAT) shares the same subnet with backend servers. This allows clients to reach the backend servers either way: directly from the firewall: client->firewall->server and on the way back it's server's default gateway which points the packet from the server back to firewall. via LTM through VIP: client->firewall->VIP->SNAT->server. On the way back the server sends the packet back to SNAT, so it's: server->SNAT->VIP->firewall->client. Now to my routing question. I don't know the IPs of our clients, they can come from any subnet. So on the F5 I need a default route towards firewall for each Vlan, but response packet must adhere to the same Vlan through which the request came in, otherwise the firewall will drop the response packet (anti-spoofing). Basically I need to achieve the following, for example: REQUEST: client 123.1.1.1 -> firewall 10.0.1.1 -> F5 VIP 10.0.1.15 -> F5 SNAT 10.0.1.25 -> SRV 10.0.1.60 RESPONSE: 10.0.1.60 -> 10.0.1.25 -> 10.0.1.15 -> !!! 10.0.1.1 !!! -> 123.1.1.1 REQUEST: client 123.1.1.1 -> firewall 10.0.2.1 -> F5 VIP 10.0.2.15 -> F5 SNAT 10.0.2.25 -> SRV 10.0.2.60 RESPONSE: 10.0.2.60 -> 10.0.2.25 -> 10.0.2.15 -> !!! 10.0.2.1 !!! -> 123.1.1.1 Does the Auto Last Hop feature solves this 'source based routing' problem? If it does, do I still need anything else in F5 routing table, for example to reach the backend servers? Or can I leave the routing table empty (assuming F5 should be able to reach directly attached networks)? Thanks. Martin
BIG-IP Version 9.3 routing - address translation problem
I am tring to setup traffic between two internal vlans (10.1.0.0 and 10.2.1.0). It works but the bigip is translating the source address to itself. Client (10.2.1.64): mysql -h 10.1.2.14 -u whatever -p Server (10.1.2.14): root@i-db0:~ netstat -an4 | grep 3306 | grep 10.1.2.14 tcp4 0 0 10.1.2.14.3306 10.1.1.240.37105 ESTABLISHED Bigip1 - self addresses 10.1.1.240 (floating) 10.1.1.241 and 10.2.1.240 (floating) and 10.2.1.241 Client - host address: 10.2.1.64/24, gateway set to 10.2.1.240 Server - host address: 10.1.2.200/16, gateway set to 10.1.1.240 traceroute to 10.1.2.14 (10.1.2.14), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 bigip01-snat (10.2.1.241) 0.316 ms 0.189 ms 0.178 ms 2 i-db0 (10.1.2.14) 0.464 ms 0.443 ms 0.346 ms and back traceroute to 10.2.1.64 (10.2.1.64), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 bigip1 (10.1.1.241) 0.228 ms 0.175 ms 0.153 ms 2 i-proxy1 (10.2.1.64) 0.454 ms 0.376 ms 0.305 ms Here is the bigip configuration: BIG-IP Version 9.3.1 81.1 self 10.1.1.240 { netmask 255.255.0.0 unit 1 floating enable vlan Default allow default } self 10.2.1.240 { netmask 255.255.255.0 unit 1 floating enable vlan Default allow default } I tried adding this and it didn't change anything. virtual vs-forward { destination 10.2.1.0:any ip forward ip protocol tcp mask 255.255.255.0 translate address disable translate service disable profile forward-fastl4 } Any help would be appreciated. Irwinvirtual server on a different routing group
I'd like to use a different routing group to provide balanced web services on an internal VLAN that must not be routable from the normal Internet traffic. I'm Using BigIP 11.2.1 I'm not able to forward traffic to the backend servers. Here are my two test virtuals: ltm virtual VSVR_TESTROUTING { destination 192.168.200.102%1:http ip-protocol tcp mask 255.255.255.255 pool pool_courtesy_page profiles { http { } tcp { } } snat automap vlans-disabled } ltm virtual VSVR_TESTROUTING2 { destination 192.168.100.203:http ip-protocol tcp mask 255.255.255.255 pool pool_courtesy_page profiles { http { } tcp { } } snat automap vlans-disabled } The pool is correctly routed from routing group 0 (default) where it resides. Trying to access http://192.168.100.203/ works fine, while any access to http://192.168.200.202/ is reset just like when the pool members are not accessible. Of course the routing is OK, and if I attach to VSVR_TESTROUTING an iRule containing just a HTTP::respond 200 content {....}, the virtual correctly returns the given content. I did a tcpdump on both VLANs, there is no traffic at all related to failed accesses to VSVR_TESTROUTING, while succeeding accesses to VSVR_TESTROUTING2 are visible (SNAT-ed with the right self-ip) It really seems to refuse to forward the requests to the pool, and not simply forwarding the request to the wrong default gateway, but I don't understand why... Does this scenario ring a bell in anyone's ear? Thanks, Angelo.
BIG-IQ device discovery issue - no route
Hi guys, trying to discover BIG-IP devices via a mgmt interface of the BIG-IQ and getting the "no route to host" error. I have only the mgmt interface on this big-iq VE with default mgmt route and specific mgmt route to the big-ip device. ping and trace work fine but 443 and 22 fail with "no route to host". [root@bigiq1:Active:Standalone] config tmsh list sys management-route sys management-route ccnet { description configured-statically gateway 10.10.10.1 mtu 1500 network 10.20.20.0/24 } sys management-route default { description configured-statically gateway 10.10.10.1 mtu 1500 network default } [root@bigiq1:Active:Standalone] config ping 10.20.20.130 PING 10.20.20.130 (10.20.20.130) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 10.20.20.130: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=1.09 ms 64 bytes from 10.20.20.130: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=0.947 ms ^C --- 10.20.20.130 ping statistics --- 2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1776ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.947/1.023/1.099/0.076 ms [root@bigiq1:Active:Standalone] config curl -k -v -X GET https://admin:admin@10.20.20.130/mgmt/shared/echo * About to connect() to 10.20.20.130 port 443 (0) * Trying 10.20.20.130... No route to host * couldn't connect to host * Closing connection 0 curl: (7) couldn't connect to host [root@bigiq1:Active:Standalone] config ssh 10.20.20.130 ssh: connect to host 10.20.20.130 port 22: No route to host Any advice will be appreciated. MikeSelf IP in different subnet and VS and pool members are in same subnet then Self ip
Hi Team, I'm working on one of the installation where the requirement is that VS - e.g 10.10.10.X and pool members are in same subnet 10.10.10.X whereas F5 Self IPs will be in different subnet e.g 10.10.20.X and would like to understand how the routing will work for traffic hitting to VS (We need switch/router to point the route to F5 self IP e.g 10.10.20.1 for the subnet 10.10.10.X ) and from VS to pool members and return traffic from pool members to client. Can someone help?Problem when attempting to route between two route domains.
Hello, I have this scenario A front-end vlan (vlan_one), belonging to Route Domain #1 A back-end vlan (vlan_two), belonging to Route Domain #2 Some virtual servers in between, to balance traffic from the front-end users to the back-end servers. Now, some administrators behind a firewall connected to the front-end (vlan_one) need to reach the back-end servers directly. So that routing between Routing Domains #1 & #2 should be enabled. How can I perform the routing between both Route Domains? I disabled the "strict isolation" on both Route Domains, plus within the Route Domain #1 (Front-End) I set the Route Domain #2 (Back-End) as his parent Domain. But the routing does not seems to work. Do you think this is the right way to do that? Or did I left something? Regards in advance.