From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 28 08:55:36 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA72837B401 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 08:55:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from horsey.gshapiro.net (horsey.gshapiro.net [64.105.95.154]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44F8943F93 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 08:55:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gshapiro@gshapiro.net) Received: from horsey.gshapiro.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) h4SFtZiR069133 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 28 May 2003 08:55:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gshapiro@localhost)h4SFtZXG069132; Wed, 28 May 2003 08:55:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 08:55:35 -0700 From: Gregory Neil Shapiro To: Luigi Rizzo Message-ID: <20030528155535.GB13285@horsey.gshapiro.net> References: <20030527225040.GV13285@horsey.gshapiro.net> <20030528013250.A30254@xorpc.icir.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030528013250.A30254@xorpc.icir.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPFW V2 dynamic keepalives broken X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 15:55:37 -0000 > i imagine the following happens: > + the client does not properly close the connection; I tend to agree. > + when a keepalive is sent (every 5 minutes), But wouldn't a dyn_fin_lifetime of 1 mean it wouldn't reach 5 minutes? > the the server's TCP responds (thus refreshing the rule), and the Interestingly enough, the client can't respond. An upstream Nokia Checkpoint FW-1 firewall is rejecting the packets from the client to the server with "Unknown established connection". You are correct though, the server may be responding. > TCP timeout is reset so it stays in the FIN_WAIT[2] state for > another cycle, whereas the client does not bother to send back a > RST (which would cause the timeout for the dynamic rule go down to > very low values). > Maybe i should change the logic in the dynamic rules so that further > keepalives are not sent unless a reply has been received from both > sides. That does sound like a good solution. > > # sysctl net.inet.ip.fw.dyn_keepalive=0 > > net.inet.ip.fw.dyn_keepalive: 1 -> 0 > > (wait a few seconds) > > how "few" seconds ? I suppose in the order of 300 or so, enough > to let the local session expire ? Yes, sorry, that should have been "few minutes", not "few seconds". By the way, since sending the mail yesterday, 149 have collected in FIN_WAIT_2 on the server. I repeated the process and timed it. It started dropping them after about 6 minutes.