hi,
Following an SMS migrate_server import, I am experiencing an issue with one of our cluster members.
Currently, HTTPS access is completely unavailable, and SSH access to this specific member fails from all external sources. Interestingly, SSH is only successful when connecting directly from the other cluster member.
tcpdump -ni any "host 10.110.16.32 and tcp port 22"
tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
listening on any, link-type LINUX_SLL (Linux cooked), capture size 262144 bytes
08:19:06.985053 ethertype IPv4, IP 10.110.16.32.10400 > 192.168.99.250.ssh: Flags [S], seq 2819899382, win 65535, options [mss 1360,nop,wscale 8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
08:19:06.985053 ethertype IPv4, IP 10.110.16.32.10400 > 192.168.99.250.ssh: Flags [S], seq 2819899382, win 65535, options [mss 1360,nop,wscale 8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
08:19:06.985053 IP 10.110.16.32.10400 > 192.168.99.250.ssh: Flags [S], seq 2819899382, win 65535, options [mss 1360,nop,wscale 8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
08:19:07.985604 ethertype IPv4, IP 10.110.16.32.10400 > 192.168.99.250.ssh: Flags [S], seq 2819899382, win 65535, options [mss 1360,nop,wscale 8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
08:19:07.985604 ethertype IPv4, IP 10.110.16.32.10400 > 192.168.99.250.ssh: Flags [S], seq 2819899382, win 65535, options [mss 1360,nop,wscale 8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
08:19:07.985604 IP 10.110.16.32.10400 > 192.168.99.250.ssh: Flags [S], seq 2819899382, win 65535, options [mss 1360,nop,wscale 8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
08:19:09.990909 ethertype IPv4, IP 10.110.16.32.10400 > 192.168.99.250.ssh: Flags [S], seq 2819899382, win 65535, options [mss 1360,nop,wscale 8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
08:19:09.990909 ethertype IPv4, IP 10.110.16.32.10400 > 192.168.99.250.ssh: Flags [S], seq 2819899382, win 65535, options [mss 1360,nop,wscale 8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
08:19:09.990909 IP 10.110.16.32.10400 > 192.168.99.250.ssh: Flags [S], seq 2819899382, win 65535, options [mss 1360,nop,wscale 8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
08:19:14.000770 ethertype IPv4, IP 10.110.16.32.10400 > 192.168.99.250.ssh: Flags [S], seq 2819899382, win 65535, options [mss 1360,nop,wscale 8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
08:19:14.000770 ethertype IPv4, IP 10.110.16.32.10400 > 192.168.99.250.ssh: Flags [S], seq 2819899382, win 65535, options [mss 1360,nop,wscale 8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
08:19:14.000770 IP 10.110.16.32.10400 > 192.168.99.250.ssh: Flags [S], seq 2819899382, win 65535, options [mss 1360,nop,wscale 8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
08:19:22.003240 ethertype IPv4, IP 10.110.16.32.10400 > 192.168.99.250.ssh: Flags [S], seq 2819899382, win 65535, options [mss 1360,nop,wscale 8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
08:19:22.003240 ethertype IPv4, IP 10.110.16.32.10400 > 192.168.99.250.ssh: Flags [S], seq 2819899382, win 65535, options [mss 1360,nop,wscale 8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
08:19:22.003240 IP 10.110.16.32.10400 > 192.168.99.250.ssh: Flags [S], seq 2819899382, win 65535, options [mss 1360,nop,wscale 8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
you can see no syn-ack!
Smartconsole logs also show that the request is accepted, and there are no antispoofing issues.
there is nothing logged when running zdebug drop, so for all intent and purposes, the packet is received, then "vanishes" after that.
here is what fw monitor -F shows:
[vs_0][ppak_0] bond1.99:i[52]: 10.110.16.32 -> 192.168.99.250 (TCP) len=52 id=50403
TCP: 10400 -> 22 .S.... seq=275afd3d ack=00000000
[vs_0][fw_5] bond1.99:i[52]: 10.110.16.32 -> 192.168.99.250 (TCP) len=52 id=50403
TCP: 10400 -> 22 .S.... seq=275afd3d ack=00000000
[vs_0][fw_5] bond1.99:I[52]: 10.110.16.32 -> 192.168.99.250 (TCP) len=52 id=50403
TCP: 10400 -> 22 .S.... seq=275afd3d ack=00000000
[vs_0][ppak_0] bond1.99:i[52]: 10.110.16.32 -> 192.168.99.250 (TCP) len=52 id=50404
TCP: 10400 -> 22 .S.... seq=275afd3d ack=00000000
[vs_0][fw_5] bond1.99:i[52]: 10.110.16.32 -> 192.168.99.250 (TCP) len=52 id=50404
TCP: 10400 -> 22 .S.... seq=275afd3d ack=00000000
[vs_0][fw_5] bond1.99:I[52]: 10.110.16.32 -> 192.168.99.250 (TCP) len=52 id=50404
TCP: 10400 -> 22 .S.... seq=275afd3d ack=00000000
[vs_0][ppak_0] bond1.99:i[52]: 10.110.16.32 -> 192.168.99.250 (TCP) len=52 id=50405
TCP: 10400 -> 22 .S.... seq=275afd3d ack=00000000
[vs_0][fw_5] bond1.99:i[52]: 10.110.16.32 -> 192.168.99.250 (TCP) len=52 id=50405
TCP: 10400 -> 22 .S.... seq=275afd3d ack=00000000
[vs_0][fw_5] bond1.99:I[52]: 10.110.16.32 -> 192.168.99.250 (TCP) len=52 id=50405
TCP: 10400 -> 22 .S.... seq=275afd3d ack=00000000
[vs_0][ppak_0] bond1.99:i[52]: 10.110.16.32 -> 192.168.99.250 (TCP) len=52 id=50406
TCP: 10400 -> 22 .S.... seq=275afd3d ack=00000000
[vs_0][fw_5] bond1.99:i[52]: 10.110.16.32 -> 192.168.99.250 (TCP) len=52 id=50406
TCP: 10400 -> 22 .S.... seq=275afd3d ack=00000000
[vs_0][fw_5] bond1.99:I[52]: 10.110.16.32 -> 192.168.99.250 (TCP) len=52 id=50406
TCP: 10400 -> 22 .S.... seq=275afd3d ack=00000000
[vs_0][ppak_0] bond1.99:i[52]: 10.110.16.32 -> 192.168.99.250 (TCP) len=52 id=50407
TCP: 10400 -> 22 .S.... seq=275afd3d ack=00000000
[vs_0][fw_5] bond1.99:i[52]: 10.110.16.32 -> 192.168.99.250 (TCP) len=52 id=50407
TCP: 10400 -> 22 .S.... seq=275afd3d ack=00000000
[vs_0][fw_5] bond1.99:I[52]: 10.110.16.32 -> 192.168.99.250 (TCP) len=52 id=50407
TCP: 10400 -> 22 .S.... seq=275afd3d ack=00000000
so only i and I
there is a correct route:
S 10.110.16.32/32 via 192.168.99.254, bond1.99, cost 0, age 52435
where 192.168.99.254 is vip
Anyone seen anything similar before?