search

utilitywarehouse / semaphore-wireguard

MIT License
15 stars 0 forks source link

No Connectivity yet, logs attached #24

Open laxmanvallandas opened 2 years ago

laxmanvallandas commented 2 years ago

Config used: { "local": { "name": "local" }, "remotes": [ { "name": "remot", "kubeConfigPath": "/config", # kubeconfig config of remot cluster "podSubnet": "1.1.128.0/17", "remoteSATokenPath": "/etc/semaphore-wireguard/tokens/remote1/token", "wgListenPort": 51824 } ] } Logs of the service: [INFO] semaphore-wireguard: No key found, generating a new private key: path=/var/lib/semaphore-wireguard/wireguard.remot.key semaphore-wireguard: Configuring wireguard: device=wireguard.remot port=51824 pubKey=<an encrypted key> 1 shared_informer.go:240] Waiting for caches to sync for nodeWatcher [INFO] semaphore-wireguard: starting node watcher [WARN] semaphore-wireguard: Cannot sync peers while canSync flag is not set 1 shared_informer.go:247] Caches are synced for nodeWatcher

Route after the service is up: [~]$ route -n 1.1.128.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.128.0 U 0 0 0 wireguard.remot 172.17.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 docker0

nodes on remot cluster has route similar route similar to above but with interface being wireguard.local and for destination 2.2.128.0(pod network of local)

--- Connectivity check from one of the node(10.10.12.125) hosting pods: [~]$ ping 1.1.133.154 PING 1.1.133.154 (1.1.133.154) 56(84) bytes of data. From 10.10.12.125 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable ping: sendmsg: Required key not available

---- route get from node(10.10.12.125) [~]$ ip route get 1.1.133.154 1.1.133.154 dev wireguard.remot src 20.20.133.5 cache

---- Remote key present [ ~]$ ls /var/lib/semaphore-wireguard/wireguard.remot.key /var/lib/semaphore-wireguard/wireguard.remot.key

----- tcpdump on the remote node(20.20.133.5): [ ~]$ sudo tcpdump -n -i eth0 'src or dst 10.10.12.125' tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode listening on eth0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 262144 bytes 09:27:23.649518 IP 20.20.133.5.51824 > 10.10.12.125.51824: UDP, length 32 09:27:48.666056 IP 10.10.12.125.51824 > 20.20.133.5.51824: UDP, length 32

---- Communication between nodes in two clusters exist

Note: Pods were up on both clusters before semaphore wireguard is launched. Hope this should not be an issue.

@george-angel @ffilippopoulos Can I get some help? May be I am something?

ffilippopoulos commented 2 years ago

Hey, can you share the output of sudo wg show on nodes in both clusters? The private keys should be hidden so this could be suitable for copy-paste. Also, can you please share the output of: kubectl --context <context> describe node <node> | grep wireguard.semaphore.uw.io to check your annotations in both clusters?

ffilippopoulos commented 2 years ago

One thing to note here is that Calico will not accept any traffic from/to ip subnets it does not know about. You need to define an ippool on each cluster for each remote pod subnet. In your case it would look like:

apiVersion: projectcalico.org/v3
kind: IPPool
metadata:
  name: remot-pods
spec:
  cidr: 1.1.128.0/20
  ipipMode: CrossSubnet
  disabled: true

for the "local" cluster, and the respective one for the remot containing the local pod ip range. Make sure that this pool is disabled as per the example above ^.

Regarding your ping, you should be trying that experiment from inside a pod, following the above logic. Also, make sure you do not have any network policies deployed which block the remote traffic.

I appreciate that even though this is calico related config, it should be documented under our instructions here as well.

laxmanvallandas commented 2 years ago

peer: endpoint: 20.20.133.5:51825 allowed ips: 1.1.203.0/24 latest handshake: 22 seconds ago transfer: 2.25 KiB received, 1.41 KiB sent persistent keepalive: every 25 seconds

peer: endpoint: 20.20.133.137:51825 allowed ips: 1.1.158.0/24 latest handshake: 26 seconds ago transfer: 1.59 KiB received, 2.36 KiB sent persistent keepalive: every 25 seconds

peer: endpoint: 20.20.133.177:51825 allowed ips: 1.1.142.0/24 latest handshake: 1 minute, 40 seconds ago transfer: 1.62 KiB received, 2.30 KiB sent persistent keepalive: every 25 seconds

peer: endpoint: 20.20.133.153:51825 allowed ips: 1.1.207.0/24 latest handshake: 2 minutes, 6 seconds ago transfer: 1.56 KiB received, 2.39 KiB sent persistent keepalive: every 25 seconds

-- From inside the pod on [10.10.12.125 ~]$ / # curl 1.1.133.154:80 => IP OF THE NEW POD CREATED ON REMOTE CLUSTER curl: (7) Failed to connect to 1.1.133.154 port 80 after 1002 ms: Host is unreachable

-- From the host on which above pod is running: [10.10.12.125 ~]$ sudo tcpdump -n -i wireguard.remot tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode listening on wireguard.remot, link-type RAW (Raw IP), capture size 262144 bytes 12:43:33.726299 IP 2.2.183.182.60010 > 1.1.207.11.http: Flags [S], seq 953866, win 28000, options [mss 1400,nop,nop,sackOK,nop,wscale 9], length 0

From output of wg show, shouldn't atleast one peer contain the allowedips to have a subnet to which 1.1.133.154 belong? (I havent used wireguard before)

Networkpolicies were all deleted at the time of testing above.

Also, note that my cluster has route reflectors running within the clusters. No peering between route-reflectors of each cluster though.

ffilippopoulos commented 2 years ago

Old annotations and the wglistenaddress is in general not getting released after the daemonset is deleted.

Yes, the daemonset pods should be able to update them when it is running. They should be harmless and you shouldn't try to delete those, they might actually allow wireguard devices to be successflly paired even in times where your semaphore-wireguard is not running (for example during a rollout).

Ensured the IPPool exists as suggested.

ok that is a vital thing for calico to allow the traffic here.

From output of wg show, shouldn't atleast one peer contain the allowedips to have a subnet to which 1.1.133.154 belong?

yes, one of the peers should be allowing the 1.1.133.0/24 subnet. This value is derived from the nodes' PodCIDR field. You can check like: kubectl --context <context> describe node <node> | grep PodCIDR What ipam are you configuring calico to use. I think for that value to be consistent we need to use the host-local one:

            "ipam": {                                                             
              "type": "host-local",                                               
              "subnet": "usePodCidr"                                              
            },

Apart from that it looks like the wireguard peers are able to communicate fine, so traffic should be able to flow throw for the allowed subnets there?

laxmanvallandas commented 2 years ago

Hmm. node config show Node.Spec.PodCIDR field being set in all nodes and exactly these fields are populated to remote wireguard peers. As per below and I hope, if this field is set, node use Host-local IPAM. image. Not sure, there is any explicit way to find out the plugin in use. 😑 What confusing me is ip assigned to pods(1.1.133.0/24) is not in the range of any of the nodes PodCIDR. But, my IPPool have a broader range 1.1.128.0/17. Wondering if there any rule(somewhere) like IPPool takes priority while assigning IP's over nodes PodCIDR. 🤔

ffilippopoulos commented 2 years ago

Not sure, there is any explicit way to find out the plugin in use.

@laxmanvallandas calico config, which includes the ipam, is usually passed using a configMap: kubectl --namespace kube-system get configmaps calico-config -o yaml

laxmanvallandas commented 2 years ago

We are not using host-local. As I see that PodCIDR is the one which is propagated to remote cluster through wireguard, Looks like using a host-local is a prerequisite for this utility to give expected results. Other random IP's allocated from the broader range might not be able to reach.

ffilippopoulos commented 2 years ago

@laxmanvallandas I see that the Kubernetes Nodes have a PodCIDRs field which could be potentially used for that. We follow the same approach as Calico for host-local ipam, which you posted above, and throw this field directly as allowed ips for our wireguard peers: https://github.com/utilitywarehouse/semaphore-wireguard/blob/main/runner.go#L199. If PodCIDRs is sufficient for both cases, this could be an easy and quick fix. What ipam are you using? Looks like everything else is working for you as expected.

laxmanvallandas commented 2 years ago

@ffilippopoulos I am using calico ipam. I noticed that you have added a limitation section now. Thanks for that. And, really appreciate your prompt responses. Based on the routes propagated in wireguard, I can say all that, what this service promised is working and its an easy solve compared to other solutions i gone through in the last few days. Interested to know if you have any plans to enhance or provide a workaround for non host-local ipams?

ffilippopoulos commented 2 years ago

@laxmanvallandas I am sorry this is not working with your setup as is, I do not know if switching to host-local ipam is an option for you. It is not ideal for us to support many different ipams as we are developing against our environment. This is why I asked if you could provide the value of PodCIDRs in one of your nodes, to see if there is a cheap win there and we can switch to using that field (from what I've seen so far this will continue to work with host-local ipam). Apart from that, I'll have a look on to see if I can find any nice documentation on calico-ipam and evaluate our options.

ffilippopoulos commented 2 years ago

I'looked briefly on calico-ipam and it looks like we'd have to start watching ipamblocks.crd.projectcalico.org resources in order to figure out the allowed_ips per wg peer, and it will include a lot more updates on peers config, since the list of ips will be dynamic. So supporting calico-ipam could be implemented but it will not be trivial, and would require some design for the added complexity.