Hi Thierry, On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 12:31:26PM +0100, Thierry Du Tre wrote: > > Op 30/01/2018 om 14:02 schreef Thierry Du Tre: > > This is a patch proposal to support shifted ranges in portmaps. > > (i.e. tcp/udp incoming port 5000-5100 on WAN redirected to LAN 192.168.1.5:2000-2100) > > > > Currently DNAT only works for single port or identical port ranges. > > (i.e. ports 5000-5100 on WAN interface redirected to a LAN host while original destination port is not altered) > > When different port ranges are configured, either 'random' mode should be used, or else all incoming connections are mapped onto the first port in the redirect range. (in described example WAN:5000-5100 will all be mapped to 192.168.1.5:2000) > > > > This patch introduces a new mode indicated by flag NF_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_OFFSET which uses a base port value to calculate an offset with the destination port present in the incoming stream. That offset is then applied as index within the redirect port range (index modulo rangewidth to handle range overflow). > > > > In described example the base port would be 5000. An incoming stream with destination port 5004 would result in an offset value 4 which means that the NAT'ed stream will be using destination port 2004. > > > > Other possibilities include deterministic mapping of larger or multiple ranges to a smaller range : WAN:5000-5999 -> LAN:5000-5099 (maps WAN port 5*xx to port 51xx) > > > > This patch does not change any current behavior. It just adds new NAT proto range functionality which must be selected via the specific flag when intended to use. > > > > A patch for iptables (libipt_DNAT.c + libip6t_DNAT.c) will also be proposed which makes this functionality immediately available. > > I'm wondering if I might have missed a response with more remarks. > > As previous versions got some feedback (which I think to have > addressed all with the latest submission), I'm hoping to get close > to a definitive solution for this extension. Yes, you did indeed. I'm reviewing this and now I understand the remark you made regarding avoiding the structure rename. What I proposed should be fine for us since we keep a cached copy of the nf_nat.h header in iptables userspace, but this may cause indeed potential problems to anyone else given compiling old source against with uapi headers may potentially break things. Sorry for the back and forths, but I think we should go back and take your patchset v2. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
