Change:
return nil } <ins> // ChainExists is part of iptables.Interface func (*FakeIPTables) ChainExists(table iptables.Table, chain iptables.Chain) (bool, error) { return true, nil } </ins> // EnsureRule is part of iptables.Interface func (*FakeIPTables) EnsureRule(position iptables.RulePosition, table iptables.Table, chain iptables.Chain, args ...string) (bool, error) { return true, nil

Discussion:
(update: likely this is benign, but it seems really weird when your reading kube proxy logs) in healthy, IPTABLES jobs, the various ip6tables-restore commands are happy....MEANWHILE in ipvs jobs (healthy, or non healthy, we see that some of the iptables dont exist which makes sense... why is ipvs kube proxy tyrying to do iptables-restore operations on the table ? why is it trying to do iptables stuff at all ? It seems like we get error messages when running ipv6. not sure why though? in particular i found these errors when looking at the test failures for You wouldnt see error messages for ip6tables-restore when running ipvs tests. This may be my own ignorance however, i.e. maybe this is normal. I guess every job has this (wether or not the job passes or fails) ? Here is an example from a passing test.... Similar logs from a failing tests that i originally saw this message ... has this failure, it is reproduced via the corresponding ci job ... the logs in the kube-proxy for one of the nodes look like this: ill add more links as i collect more data. Kubernetes version (use ): prow (main branch as of feb 12 2021)
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the label and provide further guidance. The label can be by org members by writing in a comment. <detailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/sig network
So, this happens in HEALTHY jobs to, so i guess its not a driver for an actual bug.... but its still weird to me :) ... updating original issue...
any idea on why those ipv6 errors are printed in ipvs code ?
The proxier is configured in dual-stack mode in the CI Since we enabled the dual-stack gate recently, this is the expected behaviour
I don't get similar printouts myself so I can't say anything for sure. By first check the old re-occuring (and very annoying) "KUBE-MARK-DROP" problem.

This chain is usually created by "kubeadm" but so far kubeadm is unaware of dual-stack and has only created this chain for ipv4 (in iptables). Then it needs to be created for IPv6 before kube-proxy is started; In my test cluster I always do this in a prep-stage before starting K8s.
The ci nodes doesn't have the kernel ip6tables nat modules loaded, hence they fail all the operation related
hmmm ok so is the issue here that we need to load that module in the CI jobs?
signing here because I want to at least find why ip6tables restore is called on kube-proxy ipvs things :D
ipvs does uses iptables too I think that kube-proxy should implement something similar to what implemented in kubelet The nat table for IPv6 was in 3.7 and it seems that it may be not present in some systems. /cc
/assign
I think it's mostly just about whether IPv6 is enabled, not about the kernel version.
IIRC this specific error in the CI is about the nat module only Anyway, you fixed it :clap: /unassign /assign