Re: Private traffic seen on public NATed interface - Linux 2.6.10-11 tested

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Marius Mertens wrote:

On Wednesday, March 16, 2005 1:49 PM,
James MacLean wrote:

[...]
May I suggest someone else even try it at home :), or on a half busy
box? We _are_ honestly seeing this at different sites with different
rules, but with the common SNAT for private IP space.
[...]


Sorry I cannot provide anything to solve your problem, but maybe you want to check the following:
I also had (and already have, I just ignore it at the moment) a quite similar problem: Some packets that should have been modified by NAT were not processed, but in the direction "Internet --> NATted Clients" (exactly the opposite direction that makes problems on your setup) so that missed packets hit the INPUT rules of my router.
If you want to have more detailed information please see http://lists.netfilter.org/pipermail/netfilter/2005-January/057795.html
Now to the property you might want to check: All packets being not correctly processed by NAT had the state INVALID. I am not sure when/why the connection became INVALID, but since there has been traffic in both directions before, it it unlikely that it was INVALID in the first place.
Perhaps your not processed packets are also considered INVALID?
This is of course far away from a solution (since it is still unclear, why they become INVALID), but if we can find further criteria that applies to all these similar problems, maybe we are able to track it down.


Marius

Bingo. And thanks :). Yes, this is looking very similar to our situation. A small dump and the matching INVALID rule logging :

12:24:59.083117 IP 10.0.5.221.1672 > 64.202.98.35.http: F 1992443149:1992443149(0) ack 2731371818 win 63513

Mar 16 12:24:5 the kernel: INVALID IN=eth1 OUT=eth0 SRC=10.0.5.221 DST=64.202.98.35 LEN=40 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=127 ID=15881 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=1672 DPT=80 WINDOW=63513 RES=0x00 ACK FIN URGP=0

Watching the logs on busy sites we see many of these :).

So now we know what it is, and we can simply apply INVALID rules if we need to. I wonder how long this has been going on :(.

thanks again,
JES

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Netfilter Development]     [Linux Kernel Networking Development]     [Netem]     [Berkeley Packet Filter]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Advanced Routing & Traffice Control]     [Bugtraq]

  Powered by Linux