Re: Re: Route traffic per protocol - it is possible?

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

 



Scott:

  That wasn't the error. I've seen the error before typing and I tested it
the correct way. It's something related to de kernel/netfilter version.
  Anyway, I'm still trying to find a solution...

> It doesn't, at least not with 1.2.11, here is the
> error:
>
> iptables v1.2.11: Unknown arg `--dport'
> Try `iptables -h' or 'iptables --help' for more
> information.
>
> tested with a 2.6.11 kernel.
>
> --- Gustavo Castro Puig <gcastro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Kenneth:
>>
>>   It's almost sure to work... but I don't have one
>> of the latest version
>> of iptables (which includes this feature), so I
>> can't make it that
>> way... :-(
>>   Anyway, I should update my netfilter...
>>   I'll check it!
>>   Thank you, Keneth, and if anybody have any other
>> way to do this, will be
>> appreciated too!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>      G.Castro P.
>>
>> > On 6/7/05, Gustavo Castro Puig
>> <gcastro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> Hi, list!
>> >>
>> >>   I've got an issue to resolve and I want to know
>> if it's possible to do
>> >> it with netfilter/iproute2. I've been googling
>> for some time, but I
>> >> couldn't find the way to do this (may be I'm not
>> searching the correct
>> >> way), so any help from you will be *VERY*
>> appreciated.
>> >>   I have a firewall with two links, on direct to
>> Internet and another
>> >> (to
>> >> internet too) through another firewall. All
>> traffic is now going to
>> >> Internet through the other firewall, but I want
>> to know if it's possible
>> >> to send some traffic (not all) through the direct
>> link to Internet. I
>> >> don't want to redirect all traffic coming from
>> some IPs, intead, I want
>> >> to redirect only SSH traffic (for example) from
>> the box through the
>> >> direct link and all other traffic to the other
>> firewall. Something like
>> >> a "per-protocol routing policy". I've been trying
>> with iproute2 and
>> >> iptables, marking packets and routing them with
>> two routing tables, but
>> >> it didn't work.
>> >
>> > I'm not an expert, nor have I done this myself.
>> But from replies by
>> > members of the list and some reading up over the
>> months I'd recommend
>> > using the ROUTE target.
>> >
>> > <man iptables>
>> >    ROUTE
>> >        This is used to explicitly override the
>> core network stack's
>> > routing decision.  mangle table.
>> >
>> >        --oif ifname
>> >               Route the packet through ifname
>> network interface
>> >
>> >        --iif ifname
>> >               Change the packet's incoming
>> interface to ifname
>> >
>> >        --gw IP_address
>> >               Route the packet via this gateway
>> >
>> >        --continue
>> >               Behave like a non-terminating target
>> and continue
>> > traversing the rules.  Not valid in combination
>> with --iif
>> > </man>
>> >
>> > So, let's say ppp0 and ppp1 are your links, and
>> everything defaults to
>> > ppp0. You want ssh to go over ppp1, try one of
>> these:
>> >
>> > iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING --dport 22 -j
>> ROUTE --oif ppp1
>> > - or -
>> > iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING --dport 22 -j
>> ROUTE --gw 1.1.1.1
>> >
>> > In the above example, 1.1.1.1 is the gateway IP of
>> ppp1.
>> >
>> > To the other members, can the above be combined in
>> one shot? Providing
>> > both the interface and the gateway IP?
>> >
>> > HTH, I haven't tried this myself...
>> >
>> >>   The firewall have two nic, one (eth0) with an
>> address 192.168.0.15 and
>> >> the other (eth1) with the public address.
>> >>   This is what I've done:
>> >>
>> >>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> ip route flush table NEW
>> >> ip route add 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth0 table NEW
>> >> ip route add default via XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX table
>> NEW dev eth1
>> >>
>> >> iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth1 -j
>> MASQUERADE
>> >>
>> >> ip rule add fwmark 1 table NEW
>> >>
>> >> ip rule add from XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX table NEW
>> >>
>> >> iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -j
>> MARK --set-mark 1
>> >>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>   None of this lines generate errors.
>> >>   May be this is not possible, but if it is, how
>> could be done?
>> >>   Thanks in advance!
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>      G.Castro P.
>> > --
>> >
>> > Kenneth Kalmer
>> > kenneth.kalmer@xxxxxxxxx
>> > http://opensourcery.blogspot.com
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>


Saludos,
     Gustavo Castro Puig.
     E-Mail: gcastro@xxxxxxxxxx
     G.C.P. Software - Informática Inteligente.
     Web: http://www.gcp.com.uy

LPI Level-1 Certified (https://www.lpi.org/es/verify.html
LPID:LPI000042304 Verification Code: hp6re8w5qg )
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS/CM/IT/ED dx s-:- a? C(+++)$ UL++++*$ P+ L++++(++)$ E--- W+++$ N+ o?
K- w O M V-- PS PE++(-) Y-(+) PGP+ t(++) 5+ X++ R tv+ b++(++++) DI+++
D++ G++ e++ h--- r y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Registered Linux User #69342



[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