@roobesh wrote:

We are running below version of code

haproxy -vv

HA-Proxy version 1.8.14-1ppa1~trusty 2018/09/23
Copyright 2000-2018 Willy Tarreau willy@haproxy.org

Build options :
TARGET = linux2628
CPU = generic
CC = gcc
CFLAGS = -g -O2 -fPIE -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -Wformat -Werror=format-security -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
OPTIONS = USE_GETADDRINFO=1 USE_ZLIB=1 USE_REGPARM=1 USE_OPENSSL=1 USE_LUA=1 USE_PCRE=1 USE_PCRE_JIT=1 USE_NS=1

Default settings :
maxconn = 2000, bufsize = 16384, maxrewrite = 1024, maxpollevents = 200

Built with OpenSSL version : OpenSSL 1.0.1f 6 Jan 2014
Running on OpenSSL version : OpenSSL 1.0.1f 6 Jan 2014
OpenSSL library supports TLS extensions : yes
OpenSSL library supports SNI : yes
OpenSSL library supports : SSLv3 TLSv1.0 TLSv1.1 TLSv1.2
Built with Lua version : Lua 5.3.1
Built with transparent proxy support using: IP_TRANSPARENT IPV6_TRANSPARENT IP_FREEBIND
Encrypted password support via crypt(3): yes
Built with multi-threading support.
Built with PCRE version : 8.31 2012-07-06
Running on PCRE version : 8.31 2012-07-06
PCRE library supports JIT : no (libpcre build without JIT?)
Built with zlib version : 1.2.8
Running on zlib version : 1.2.8
Compression algorithms supported : identity(“identity”), deflate(“deflate”), raw-deflate(“deflate”), gzip(“gzip”)
Built with network namespace support.

Available polling systems :
epoll : pref=300, test result OK
poll : pref=200, test result OK
select : pref=150, test result OK
Total: 3 (3 usable), will use epoll.

Available filters :
[SPOE] spoe
[COMP] compression
[TRACE] trace

• We have send-proxy configured and running fine all these days. Noticed when we started logging, some traffic which passed from haproxy to backend server noticed that send-proxy is not actually modifying the proxy ip/port, instead retaining same client ip/port like below,

PROXY TCP4 192.220.26.39 192.220.26.39 45066 45066
PROXY TCP4 192.220.26.39 192.220.26.39 45075 45075

We tried to sniff the packet the moment it leaves haproxy and above is what we see. This is only happening only sometimes for some traffic and rest of the traffic properly looks good.

Could you please see this is a known bug in the version we running or something known issue ?

Thanks for your help.

-Roobesh G M

Posts: 1

Participants: 1

Read full topic