Change:
continue } <ins> // For LBs with externalTrafficPolicy=Local, we need to re-route any local traffic to the service chain masqueraded. // Masqueraded traffic in this scenario is okay since source IP preservation only applies to external traffic anyways. args = append(args[:0], "-A", string(svcXlbChain)) writeLine(proxier.natRules, append(args, "-m", "comment", "--comment", fmt.Sprintf(`"masquerade LOCAL traffic for %s LB IP"`, svcNameString), "-m", "addrtype", "--src-type", "LOCAL", "-j", string(KubeMarkMasqChain))...) writeLine(proxier.natRules, append(args, "-m", "comment", "--comment", fmt.Sprintf(`"route LOCAL traffic for %s LB IP to service chain"`, svcNameString), "-m", "addrtype", "--src-type", "LOCAL", "-j", string(svcChain))...) </ins> // First rule in the chain redirects all pod -> external VIP traffic to the // Service's ClusterIP instead. This happens whether or not we have local // endpoints; only if clusterCIDR is specified

Discussion:
<!-- This form is for bug reports and feature requests ONLY! If you're looking for help check and the . If the matter is security related, please disclose it privately via --Is this a BUG REPORT or FEATURE REQUEST?: /kind bug What happened: This is discussed on When externalTrafficPolicy: Local is used, in GKE, external traffic coming in to the Load Balancer works correctly. But traffic that originates within the GKE cluster is broken, a TCP SYN is not responded to. My use case: I run gitlab, gitlab-runner, docker-registry, wiki inside kubernetes. But I also access the docker-registry outside kubernetes. So my hostname for it is ''. In DNS this resolves to the LB IP. Actually, all 3 services have DNS names that resolve to the same LB IP, which then goes to the nginx ingress. so , , are generally addressed as LB-IP w/ HOSTNAME+SNI. Its 'astonishing' to not be able to access this DNS name when I'm 'inside' but can when I'm 'outside'. If I enable the IP transparency (because in my wiki I want the IP of the user who made the edit), then my gitlab-runner fails(since it cannot pull from the registry). Tim Hockin has this to say: and then: What you expected to happen: My expectation is that it should not matter where my traffic originates, if it is to a globally-routeable public IP it should work. How to reproduce it (as minimally and precisely as possible): Configure a Load Balancer, an ingress, and 2 services. Have service 2 talk to service one using a DNS name that maps to the Load Balancer. Anything else we need to know?

: Environment: Kubernetes version (use ): Client Version: version.Info{Major:"1", Minor:"10", GitVersion:"v1.10.4", GitCommit:"", GitTreeState:"clean", BuildDate:"2018-06-06T08:13:03Z", GoVersion:"go1.9.3", Compiler:"gc", Platform:"linux/amd64"} Server Version: version.Info{Major:"1", Minor:"10+", GitVersion:"v1.10.2-gke.1", GitCommit:"", GitTreeState:"clean", BuildDate:"2018-05-10T17:23:18Z", GoVersion:"go1.9.3b4", Compiler:"gc", Platform:"linux/amd64"} Cloud provider or hardware configuration: Google GKE OS (e.g. from /etc/os-release): BUILDID=.89.0 NAME="Container-Optimized OS" KERNELCOMMITID= GOOGLECRASHID=Lakitu VERSIONID=66 PRETTYNAME="Container-Optimized OS from Google" VERSION=66 GOOGLEMETRICSPRODUCTID=26 HOMEURL="" ID=cos Kernel (e.g. ): Linux gke-k8s-default-pool--d3ft 4.14.22+ SMP Thu May 10 17:54:42 PDT 2018 x8664 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU @ 2.00GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux Install tools: Others:
/sig network
Agree that this is weird and feels left-out. The fix is not complicated but I need an owner to carry it through testing.
if nobody is working on it can I take it as my first issue?.
Is anybody working on this issue. Seems like ipvs might have the same problem.
/assign
I believe I'm running into this problem and I think adding as Tim mentioned would fix it. are you working on this? If not I don't mind taking a stab at it :)
Thanks, Sorry I kinda forgot this thing. I was fixed this thing just like you said But encounter some problem when testing in gce environment, which caused by route rules. Sorry I forgot the detail, can you do some test in your environment?
It seems the pull request is stalled on this. Does anyone have any input?
Being relied on by istio
Following this.
Did this fix get lost in the shuffle?

Any chance getting this merged in? This also impacts Digital Ocean's Kubernetes + LB setups out of the box.
As far as I know it hasn't
Merge On Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 7:58 PM Jarred Capellman wrote:
still affecting me on gke. i want to enable the so that I can use the spam-blocking in wordpress (which is by ext ip), but I also want to refer to other services which may be internal to the cluster via their proper name (to get the `tls etc).
Same here.
I have more or less spelled out the fix, but I don't have teh bandwidth to polish it off right now. I am looking for volunteers...
I can take this given I've run into this a while back /assign
I was only able to reproduce this when trying to reach the public IP from the host network. Reaching the public IP from inside the pod network is working (as per this ). It's possible I missed a step in trying to reproduce this but wanted to confirm with you first. Are you seeing this for traffic originating only from host network or does it also apply for pods in the cluster network?
Hi. My situation. I have a DNS name (git.MYDOMAIN). It runs on a self-hosted gitlab via nginx-ingress via LoadBalancer in GKE. Other pods of mine sometimes reference https://git.MYDOMAIN. They may happen to run in the same cluster as git.MYDOMAIN, they may run in a different cluster. When they run in the same cluster on GKE, they fail if is enabled. Specifically, since the DNS resolves to (My external Loadbalancer IP) an IP outside of GKE, it goes out, hits the LB, and then somewhere along the reverse path is lost. I have calico enabled (as per GKE managed). I am not using Istio. I am using a cluster that predates the new private IP ones. I have not tried disabling the LoadBalancer and just using node ip for the ingress. I have not tried to see if there is any difference if the Pod trying to reach my git is on the same node as it or not.

Based on the proxy rules (may be different at this point cause I'm looking at master), I don't think your traffic is even reaching the LB, it's just being dropped by the iptable rules on the host. My original question was, are the pods trying to reach the same-cluster external IP have , if yes, can you reproduce on pods not on host network?
I do not have set.
Are you still on v1.10?
this is the most recent version on gke afaik.
I opened a fix here based on the comments and some testing I did on my GKE cluster. It needs more validation though
Again, I wasn't able to reproduce this for pods that are within the cluster CIDR (but I could on the host network). The rule that allows for pods inside the cluster CIDR to still reach pods behind an LB is this: Are you able to check if a rule like ^ exists on your cluster?
Here's an example, right now (www is hosted on ingress w/ loadbalancer w/ local policy). Note: this example is from the node (not a pod).
Here's the full rules:
^ can you show me the same test from within a pod (not host network)? I have a fix for within a node but I'd like to make sure it's reproducible inside a pod before I dig deeper
Interestingly its working in a Pod on this cluster now. (?!) I guess some previous upgrade of k8s on gke has altered it? on cannot reach on on can reach. hmmm.
ok w/o the node being able to reach this i'm still blocked (since my container registry might run there, and thus kubelet cannot reach, so my gitlab CI pipeline cannot reach). but, i guess, now the pods w/o hostnetwork can, so some progress
Thanks for checking should fix the internal reachability issue from the host. Though it requires SNAT.
Hello Maybe better way is to check if and then skip to KUBE-SERVICES chain? So, request will be sent to loadbalancer and source IP will be preserved. Can you try this?
Solution described above will affect traffic from pods, it will not be . Then maybe we can replace with something to send traffic to loadbalancer?

I think this will break existing implementations, the fwchain is what routes the LB IPs to the correct service chain. Not all LB implementations (think MetalLB) depend on node port for routing
I tried to exclude node IP with from on node without local endpoints and it works! What do you think about this solution? I tested with:
I believe there's a similar rule for that already but it doesn't check source IP If you jump to FW chain, you end up in XLB chain which drops traffic if there's no local endpoints. Does your test also work on nodes where there's no local endpoints? Can you also verify that your traffic actually goes to the LB and is not being masqueraded through the service chain?
Yes, I just source IP check to this rule on node without local endpoints, so local traffic doesn't jump to FW, it doesn't drops in XLB and it goes to LB. Of course, if you do this on node with local endpoints you will not reach that endpoint (at least when using Metallb). This solution doesn't work if nodes haven't network access to LB. Your solution haven't this problem. For me it is more important then saving source IP, so now I think your solution is better. But why you add jump to MARK-MASQ before jump to SVC when each SEP chain already contains jump to MARK-MASQ? I tested your solution with:
Good point, I think might be redundant, will update the PR soon :)