From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Dec  3 11:59:02 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72B41A75
 for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Tue,  3 Dec 2013 11:59:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from cell.glebius.int.ru (glebius.int.ru [81.19.69.10])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEB471DAA
 for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Tue,  3 Dec 2013 11:59:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from cell.glebius.int.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by cell.glebius.int.ru (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id rB3BwxmJ062588
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO);
 Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:58:59 +0400 (MSK)
 (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org)
Received: (from glebius@localhost)
 by cell.glebius.int.ru (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id rB3BwxMO062587;
 Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:58:59 +0400 (MSK)
 (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cell.glebius.int.ru: glebius set sender to
 glebius@FreeBSD.org using -f
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:58:59 +0400
From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org>
To: Vladimir Sharun <atz@ukr.net>
Subject: Re: pf reply-to malfunction after r258468 (seems r258479)
Message-ID: <20131203115859.GU48919@FreeBSD.org>
References: <1386064346.472994192.rxxiq2ll@frv45.ukr.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1386064346.472994192.rxxiq2ll@frv45.ukr.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16)
Cc: freebsd-current Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
 <freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-current>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 11:59:02 -0000

  Vladimir,

On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 11:52:26AM +0200, Vladimir Sharun wrote:
V> I have a test setup with direct internet connection Reail_IP_A and netgraph tunnel with Real_IP_B. 
V> I have used a reply-to pf ruleset to sent all the traffic back via tunnel, if 
V> it came via tunnel: 
V> 
V> pass in quick on $tunnel_if reply-to ($tunnel_if 10.1.0.1) \ 
V> proto tcp from any to Real_IP_B port 443 
V> 
V> And it works at least in r258468. After harware change/reboot yesterday I got strange performance 
V> via netgraph tunnel. Investigation shows clear: this is not tunnel itself, because endpoint can 
V> saturate wire speed, but when we run routable schema we got very low throughput. Deeper analyzing 
V> shows packet duplication from reply-to, looks like that: 
V> 09:36:59.576405 IP Real_IP_B.443 > Testbed.43775: Flags [.], seq 523587:525035, ack 850, win 1040, options [nop,nop,TS val 3415853201 ecr 44833816], length 1448 
V> 09:36:59.576413 IP Real_IP_B.443 > Testbed.43775: Flags [.], seq 523587:525035, ack 850, win 1040, options [nop,nop,TS val 3415853201 ecr 44833816], length 1448 
V> 09:36:59.577583 IP Testbed.43775 > Real_IP_B.443: Flags [.], ack 525035, win 1018, options [nop,nop,TS val 44834046 ecr 3415853201], length 0 
V> 09:36:59.577713 IP Testbed.43775 > Real_IP_B.443: Flags [.], ack 525035, win 1040, options [nop,nop,TS val 44834046 ecr 3415853201], length 0 

I doubt that r258479 can cause a regression in reply-to.

Can you please test r258478 and r258479 and confirm or decline that?

-- 
Totus tuus, Glebius.