Linux box acting as gateway (solved)
Have an issue with a linux box acting as a gateway.
Net 213.95.35.64/27 is routed to gateway 213.95.92.158
Gateway is a linux box with two virtual ip addresses:
ens160: flags=67<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING> mtu 1500
inet 213.95.92.158 netmask 255.255.255.248 broadcast 213.95.92.159
inet6 fe80::20c:29ff:fe18:b27b prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether 00:0c:29:18:b2:7b txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 5335395 bytes 1762272589 (1.7 GB)
RX errors 0 dropped 2614 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 3152319 bytes 392664253 (392.6 MB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
ens160:1: flags=67<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING> mtu 1500
inet 213.95.35.65 netmask 255.255.255.224 broadcast 213.95.35.95
ether 00:0c:29:18:b2:7b txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
Route table is
# route -n Kernel-IP-Routentabelle Ziel Router Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
0.0.0.0 213.95.92.154 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 ens160
213.95.35.64 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0 ens160
213.95.92.152 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.248 U 0 0 0 ens160
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward contains 1
iptables -L gets
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination
There is a web server at address 213.95.35.67
Default gateway at web server 213.95.35.67 is 213.95.35.65
If I do a mtr 213.95.35.67 from an external PC I get different results. There are PCs where the server 213.95.35.67 is reachable (last hop is ok) and there are PCs where the server in not reachable (trace goes until gateway 213.95.35.65 and the last hop has a package lost rate of 100%.
At server 213.95.35.67: If I do a mtr 8.8.8.8 then I get about 7 to 10 successful route paths and after that I get an encreasing package loss rate up to 100%
I have no idea what is wrong and how to fix it to get a stable connection zo server 213.95.35.67.
Is there anybody ho can give me hints, how to narrow down the problem?
Regards Bernhard
Solution: Linux box acting as a gateway needs 2 different network interfaces. Using two virtual interfaces causes errors in packet routing and makes connections instable. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.
I installed second NIC and connected external net to one and internal net to the other one. This made the connection stable and reliable.
server iptables routing gateway
asked Dec 25 at 23:46
Bernhard
292
add a comment |
Have an issue with a linux box acting as a gateway.
Net 213.95.35.64/27 is routed to gateway 213.95.92.158
Gateway is a linux box with two virtual ip addresses:
ens160: flags=67<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING> mtu 1500
inet 213.95.92.158 netmask 255.255.255.248 broadcast 213.95.92.159
inet6 fe80::20c:29ff:fe18:b27b prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether 00:0c:29:18:b2:7b txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 5335395 bytes 1762272589 (1.7 GB)
RX errors 0 dropped 2614 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 3152319 bytes 392664253 (392.6 MB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
ens160:1: flags=67<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING> mtu 1500
inet 213.95.35.65 netmask 255.255.255.224 broadcast 213.95.35.95
ether 00:0c:29:18:b2:7b txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
Route table is
# route -n Kernel-IP-Routentabelle Ziel Router Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
0.0.0.0 213.95.92.154 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 ens160
213.95.35.64 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0 ens160
213.95.92.152 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.248 U 0 0 0 ens160
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward contains 1
iptables -L gets
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination
There is a web server at address 213.95.35.67
Default gateway at web server 213.95.35.67 is 213.95.35.65
If I do a mtr 213.95.35.67 from an external PC I get different results. There are PCs where the server 213.95.35.67 is reachable (last hop is ok) and there are PCs where the server in not reachable (trace goes until gateway 213.95.35.65 and the last hop has a package lost rate of 100%.
At server 213.95.35.67: If I do a mtr 8.8.8.8 then I get about 7 to 10 successful route paths and after that I get an encreasing package loss rate up to 100%
I have no idea what is wrong and how to fix it to get a stable connection zo server 213.95.35.67.
Is there anybody ho can give me hints, how to narrow down the problem?
Regards Bernhard
Solution: Linux box acting as a gateway needs 2 different network interfaces. Using two virtual interfaces causes errors in packet routing and makes connections instable. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.
I installed second NIC and connected external net to one and internal net to the other one. This made the connection stable and reliable.
server iptables routing gateway
asked Dec 25 at 23:46
Bernhard
292
1
Please post the solution as a proper answer. You should see an orange buttonAnswer Your Questionif you scroll below
– Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
Dec 27 at 8:28
add a comment |
Have an issue with a linux box acting as a gateway.
Net 213.95.35.64/27 is routed to gateway 213.95.92.158
Gateway is a linux box with two virtual ip addresses:
ens160: flags=67<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING> mtu 1500
inet 213.95.92.158 netmask 255.255.255.248 broadcast 213.95.92.159
inet6 fe80::20c:29ff:fe18:b27b prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether 00:0c:29:18:b2:7b txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 5335395 bytes 1762272589 (1.7 GB)
RX errors 0 dropped 2614 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 3152319 bytes 392664253 (392.6 MB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
ens160:1: flags=67<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING> mtu 1500
inet 213.95.35.65 netmask 255.255.255.224 broadcast 213.95.35.95
ether 00:0c:29:18:b2:7b txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
Route table is
# route -n Kernel-IP-Routentabelle Ziel Router Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
0.0.0.0 213.95.92.154 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 ens160
213.95.35.64 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0 ens160
213.95.92.152 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.248 U 0 0 0 ens160
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward contains 1
iptables -L gets
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination
There is a web server at address 213.95.35.67
Default gateway at web server 213.95.35.67 is 213.95.35.65
If I do a mtr 213.95.35.67 from an external PC I get different results. There are PCs where the server 213.95.35.67 is reachable (last hop is ok) and there are PCs where the server in not reachable (trace goes until gateway 213.95.35.65 and the last hop has a package lost rate of 100%.
At server 213.95.35.67: If I do a mtr 8.8.8.8 then I get about 7 to 10 successful route paths and after that I get an encreasing package loss rate up to 100%
I have no idea what is wrong and how to fix it to get a stable connection zo server 213.95.35.67.
Is there anybody ho can give me hints, how to narrow down the problem?
Regards Bernhard
Solution: Linux box acting as a gateway needs 2 different network interfaces. Using two virtual interfaces causes errors in packet routing and makes connections instable. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.
I installed second NIC and connected external net to one and internal net to the other one. This made the connection stable and reliable.
server iptables routing gateway
asked Dec 25 at 23:46
Bernhard
292
Have an issue with a linux box acting as a gateway.
Net 213.95.35.64/27 is routed to gateway 213.95.92.158
Gateway is a linux box with two virtual ip addresses:
ens160: flags=67<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING> mtu 1500
inet 213.95.92.158 netmask 255.255.255.248 broadcast 213.95.92.159
inet6 fe80::20c:29ff:fe18:b27b prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether 00:0c:29:18:b2:7b txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 5335395 bytes 1762272589 (1.7 GB)
RX errors 0 dropped 2614 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 3152319 bytes 392664253 (392.6 MB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
ens160:1: flags=67<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING> mtu 1500
inet 213.95.35.65 netmask 255.255.255.224 broadcast 213.95.35.95
ether 00:0c:29:18:b2:7b txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
Route table is
# route -n Kernel-IP-Routentabelle Ziel Router Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
0.0.0.0 213.95.92.154 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 ens160
213.95.35.64 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0 ens160
213.95.92.152 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.248 U 0 0 0 ens160
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward contains 1
iptables -L gets
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination
There is a web server at address 213.95.35.67
Default gateway at web server 213.95.35.67 is 213.95.35.65
If I do a mtr 213.95.35.67 from an external PC I get different results. There are PCs where the server 213.95.35.67 is reachable (last hop is ok) and there are PCs where the server in not reachable (trace goes until gateway 213.95.35.65 and the last hop has a package lost rate of 100%.
At server 213.95.35.67: If I do a mtr 8.8.8.8 then I get about 7 to 10 successful route paths and after that I get an encreasing package loss rate up to 100%
I have no idea what is wrong and how to fix it to get a stable connection zo server 213.95.35.67.
Is there anybody ho can give me hints, how to narrow down the problem?
Regards Bernhard
Solution: Linux box acting as a gateway needs 2 different network interfaces. Using two virtual interfaces causes errors in packet routing and makes connections instable. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.
I installed second NIC and connected external net to one and internal net to the other one. This made the connection stable and reliable.
server iptables routing gateway
server iptables routing gateway
asked Dec 25 at 23:46
Bernhard
292
asked Dec 25 at 23:46
Bernhard
292
edited Dec 27 at 8:06
asked Dec 25 at 23:46
Bernhard
292
asked Dec 25 at 23:46
Bernhard
292
asked Dec 25 at 23:46
Bernhard
292
292
1
Please post the solution as a proper answer. You should see an orange buttonAnswer Your Questionif you scroll below
– Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
Dec 27 at 8:28
add a comment |
1
Please post the solution as a proper answer. You should see an orange buttonAnswer Your Questionif you scroll below
– Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
Dec 27 at 8:28
1
1
Please post the solution as a proper answer. You should see an orange button
Answer Your Question if you scroll below– Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
Dec 27 at 8:28
Please post the solution as a proper answer. You should see an orange button
Answer Your Question if you scroll below– Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
Dec 27 at 8:28
add a comment |
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "89"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1104534%2flinux-box-acting-as-gateway-solved%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Ubuntu!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1104534%2flinux-box-acting-as-gateway-solved%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Please post the solution as a proper answer. You should see an orange button
Answer Your Questionif you scroll below– Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
Dec 27 at 8:28