On 20/12/13 13:05, Joel Gerber wrote:
Your problem is one I've come up against a number of times in the past. You are definitely on the right route using "policy routing" (otherwise known as utilizing IP Rules), but the snag you're hitting is that the source address of a locally generated packet isn't chosen until a destination route has already been selected. Using the from statement in an ip rules table is only useful when you're routing packets from other subnets.
What a quick and helpful reply! Not only did my problem motivate you to respond, but I am very relieved to find the answer isn't just RTFM.
Your explanation about the timing for kernel selection of the source address is crucial and now my failed experiments all make sense. Your suggested solution also makes sense, although it is counter-intuitive... at least to me!
Now, just so you know, the local table should normally be left alone. It's used for locally connected subnets only. It is given the highest priority on purpose... don't mess with it! :)
I read somewhere (possibly the howto guide or the ip-cref) a statement that the kernel treats this table as read-only. My system is running ubuntu 13.04 with a custom non-pae 3.8.0 kernel, so it is reasonably modern. When I thought more about the purpose of this table, I decided there would be no point in trying to modify it, even if that was possible.
There are a few methods you could try here, but I'm only going to recommend one of them. Have your main routing table hold the routes that your local machine will use, and then have a separate table for all routed hosts. Then, use ip rule statements to force any traffic coming in from a routed host into that routing table. IE: on firewall-router (assuming eth1 is facing your static subnet hosts): # ip rule list 0: from all lookup local 32765: iif eth1 lookup static-hosts 32766: from all lookup main 32767: from all lookup default Have table main include all of the routes your local firewall-router should use, and have static-hosts contain all of the routes that your static-subnet-hosts should use.
Great! I understand the principle you propose and will try to implement it over the weekend. I will update this thread when I have something to report.
Once again, thanks for helping, Brian
Joel Gerber Network Specialist Network Operations Eastlink E: Joel.Gerber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx T: 519.786.1241 -----Original Message----- From: lartc-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lartc-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Burch Sent: December-20-13 7:05 AM To: Linux Advanced Routing Subject: How to override the default source ipv4 address on packets originating from a router The mailing list has been dormant for 2 years, so I wonder whether anyone is still listening for new questions? My broadband router runs PPPoA and is dynamically assigned a single ipv4 internet address by my ISP. I have a static subnet which I host on a linux router/firewall (called chenin). The linux firewall and the adsl router communicate via a non-internet-addressable private subnet. Here is the topology: Internet -- adsl-router-ppp0-ipv4-dynamic -- adsl-router-eth0-172.16.101.1 -- -- firewall-router-eth0-172.16.101.2 -- firewall-router-217.154.193.209 -- -- static-subnet-hosts-217.154.193.154.208/28 Each of the hosts on the static subnet use 217.154.193.209 as their own default route. The adsl router forwards all incoming packets to the firewall/router's eth0. The firewall/router forwards all incoming packets to the static subnet via its own eth1. The firewall/router does not need to perform NAT, but it implements a simple set of iptables rules for blacklisting, etc. /All this works perfectly./ My problem is that I need to download software updates (debian apt-get http) for the firewall/router from a repository out on the internet. The firewall/router can successfully ping the repo-server when I force the source address like this: ping -I 217.154.193.209 163.1.221.67 ... but a simple "ping 163.1.221.67" (i.e. using the default source address selection algorithm) fails. Wireshark confirms these unanswered packets go out on eth0 with a source address of 172.16.101.2. I believe I should be able to resolve this problem with iproute2 policy routing, but so far I have not been successful. I've tried several variations, but they all give me the same "wrong" source address. Here is my simplest effort: brian@chenin:~$ ip rule list 0: from all lookup local 32765: from 172.16.101.2 lookup CHENIN_ONLY 32766: from all lookup main 32767: from all lookup default brian@chenin:~$ ip route list table CHENIN_ONLY 163.1.221.67 via 172.16.101.1 dev eth0 src 217.154.193.209 brian@chenin:~$ sudo ip route flush cache brian@chenin:~$ ip route get 163.1.221.67 163.1.221.67 via 172.16.101.1 dev eth0 src 172.16.101.2 cache This shows me the source address in my policy rule has NOT been used, or the routing table entry does not work the way I think. The only rule table with higher priority than CHENIN_ONLY is local, which contains routes for addresses local to the firewall/router - nothing about remote addresses, i.e. brian@chenin:~$ ip route list table local broadcast 127.0.0.0 dev lo proto kernel scope link src 127.0.0.1 local 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo proto kernel scope host src 127.0.0.1 local 127.0.0.1 dev lo proto kernel scope host src 127.0.0.1 broadcast 127.255.255.255 dev lo proto kernel scope link src 127.0.0.1 broadcast 172.16.101.0 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 172.16.101.2 local 172.16.101.2 dev eth0 proto kernel scope host src 172.16.101.2 broadcast 172.16.101.255 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 172.16.101.2 broadcast 217.154.193.208 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 217.154.193.209 local 217.154.193.209 dev eth1 proto kernel scope host src 217.154.193.209 broadcast 217.154.193.223 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 217.154.193.209 and the main table looks like this: brian@chenin:~$ ip route list table main default via 172.16.101.1 dev eth0 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0 scope link metric 1000 172.16.101.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 172.16.101.2 217.154.193.208/28 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 217.154.193.209 I wonder whether my unsuccessful "naked" pings to 163.1.221.67 are passing through the tables three times: 1. My explicit policy should be applied to select a source address of 217.154.193.209. 2. The main table is used to select the default route via 172.16.101.1: 3. The main table then provides the explicit route to the default router, which seems to rewrite the source address to 172.16.101.2. I have read the latest lartc HOWTO sections relevant to policy routing, but didn't see anything similar to my situation. I also didn't see how to get a verbose (i.e. blow by blow) output from the "ip route get" command to show how it is selecting its route. Am I trying to do the impossible here, or am I just making a mistake in the way I am doing it? I hope this strikes someone as an interesting question. If I can achieve a solution, I would be happy to add the scenario to the HOWTO. Brian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lartc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lartc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
