-----Original Message-----
From: Amos Jeffries [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:43 PM
To: Ritter, Nicholas
Cc: Amos Jeffries; squid-dev@squid-cache.org
Subject: RE: squid3HEAD/TPROXY: interception log entries
> Amos-
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> Ok...I think I am understanding what you are saying. Now translating
> that to the situation at hand, I am not sure which route to take. I
> switched my setting for http_port to:
>
> http_port 3128 tproxy intercept disable-pmtu-discovery=always
>
> Which I understand doesn't address the issue you commented below about
> seperating intercept and tproxy traffic. If I take out the intercept,
> I get an error on the client.
>What error on the client? That sounds like a bug. tproxy option AKAIK
should be independent. Maybe that is a bug
>that need fixing.
The error the client gets is:
Connection to <server name Failed.
The system returned:
(99) Cannot assign requested address.
It is recreateable with this one part of the specific app, it something
related to server-side redirection. Doing a reload on the broswer makes
the error go away.
> I can't take tproxy out because that is what is being redirected via
> iptables rules and provides the client IP preservation to the remote
> site.
>>Agreed. My belief is that all you should need is the 'tproxy' option.
If thats failing, we need to find out why >>and fix it.
Yup...I take take intercept keyword out and it doesn't work correctly.
> I am confused as to how to seperate
> what with where given incoming WCCP traffic from the router.
>>I'll have to learn a little more about WCCP before I can answer that.
I know the router redirects the traffic to the squid box on the GRE
tunnel, then either a problem with my iptables rules or something else
hits a snag of some kind. the tproxy rule is in the prerouting chain, so
it gets the HTTP redirected traffic before it hits the GRE tunnel...if I
understand things correctly. But I notice that the whole setup will not
work correctly if the GRE tunnel is not there. The other odd thing is
that the whole setup works regardless of if I allow incoming WCCP
packets on 2048 or not, which I thought was a violation of the WCCP
spec, or maybe just would prevent extra WCCP features from working.
<snippet from followup>
> Ooops...I should have added the wccp2_server_info setting from
> squid.conf:
>
> wccp2_service_info 80 protocol=tcp flags=src_ip_hash priority=240
> ports=80 wccp2_service_info 90 protocol=tcp
> flags=dst_ip_hash,ports_source priority=240 ports=80
</snippet>
>
> On the router I have wccp redirection rules as note on the squid wiki
> (note: the squid box is 10.48.33.2, clients are 10.48.1.0/24):
>
> ip wccp 80 redirect-list 121
> ip wccp 90 redirect-list 121
>
> interface FastEthernet0/1.1
> encapsulation dot1Q 1 native
> ip address 10.48.1.1 255.255.255.0
> ip helper-address 10.2.5.101
> ip wccp 80 redirect in
> ip wccp 90 redirect out
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/1.33
> encapsulation dot1Q 33
> ip address 10.48.33.1 255.255.255.0
> ip wccp redirect exclude in
>
>
> On the squid box I have TProxy and GRE related rules:
>
> TPROXY rules:
> -A PREROUTING -p tcp -m socket -j DIVERT -A PREROUTING -p tcp -m tcp
> --dport 80 -j TPROXY --on-port 3128 --on-ip 0.0.0.0 --tproxy-mark
> 0x1/0x1 -A DIVERT -j MARK --set-mark 0x1 -A DIVERT -j ACCEPT
>
> GRE and WCCP rules:
> -A INPUT -i gre0 -j ACCEPT
> -A INPUT -i gre0 -j ACCEPT
> -A INPUT -p gre -j ACCEPT
> -A INPUT -i eth0 -p gre -j ACCEPT
> -A FORWARD -j LocalFW
> -A LocalFW -i lo -j ACCEPT
> -A LocalFW -s 10.48.33.1/32 -p udp -m udp --dport 2048 -j ACCEPT
>
> Given what you are saying, am I to assuming correctly that my iptables
> rules would need to be adjusted? I understand in principle that I
> would need to create a redirection rule to squid on one port with
> TPROXY, and another redirection/NAT/DNAT rule to a squid port with
> intercept. Is this correct?
>>Only if you wanted to use both. The one TPROXY rule(s) as you have
should be enough.
I think I must need both because leaving out the intercept keyword
causes breakage, and this is what WCCP is for.
>>What pops into my head here, without knowing the error your clients
show is a feeling that some bit of the
>>overall flow is playing nasty.
>>Can you explain what the full traffic flow behavior is vs what should
be?
I agree, I will do a write up of the application and send it off on
Monday. I have to deal with a power problem in a data center now and in
to the weekend.
Nick
