Jonathan Villa wrote: > First, grrr.... I just wrote a nice lengthy reply but my webmail session > timed out and I lost it...let's see if I can remember everything I wrote Been there done that. > Actually, it is the case :(. I _do_want_ a firewalling router to handle > my LAN and DMZ networks. I want it to protect both LAN and DMZ so that I > can manage rules from one location rather than several of the boxen. *nod* This makes sense. > no offense taken, but I hope I continue to make sense. As don't we all? > Anyway, back to the point, I started to realize that perhaps my issue is > not with how I wrote my tables/rules, but with routing (you're mention of > OSI Layer 2 perhaps). Last night it made more sense to me when I realized > that nothing was being logged on the interface connected to the > router/VLAN switch when attempting to connect to 196 (which is connected > to a switch "behind" the firewall). I realized, hey, this seems to be a > routing issue...I now see I need to find a way to have 194 (or the > firewall's $WAN_ETH) route traffic for the rest of the subnet (except for > 193 which is the router itself from the inside). If you try to put the xx.xx.xx.192/28 network behind your firewalling router except for the one of the IPs you are breaking routing and needing to bridging again. > Now this is a wild guess, but I'm starting to think that I need to change > the router's routing rules. But then again, I don't want to be someone > who remodels a bedroom just to add a new light switch. I don't think that completely redoing your routing table will gain you much. > I think I want my firewall to be the one to route for what is protected by > it, namely the LAN and DMZ because I want everything to be checked by the > rules of the firewall (which I see can be done using bridging now, but > still not sure if that's what I want). I'm starting to think that I have > just opened up a can of gusanos *nod* This makes more sense but poses a different problem. To have the xx.xx.xx.192/28 network behind your firewalling router you will need an IP network connecting your (edge) router to your firewalling router. You could use any private class IP for this little network if you wanted to. But it is considered bad form use any private IPs any where at all on the internet even if it is to connect two routers via a cross over cable. > With the exception of the firewall's internal address, 193, I would like > to have the xx.xx.xx.192/28 subnet reachable behind my firewall only *nod* > not the DMZ but the address of my firewall. I have this part working as > noted by http://www.whatismyaddress.com. I have a rule which does SNATing > on anything coming from my LAN interface and on the 192.168.0/28 network. *nod* I was meaning to say that your LAN traffic would appear to the world as having been SNATed to an IP address in your xx.xx.xx.192/28 network. > thanks, in my complete script I had something similar, but did not include > 127.0.0.0 or 169.0.0.0. Thanks for the link to the RFC You are welcome. No problem. > Ok, hopefully I'm a little more clear now, i.e. I want a firewalling > router for the subnet xx.xx.xx.192/28. Initially, my plan was to do this: > > 1. Connect eth1 to the Router directly > 2. eth0 would be the LAN and network 192.168.0/24 > 3. eth2 would ethe DMZ and network 10.x.x.x or 192.168.1/24 > 4. DNAT DMZ IP to the DMZ network like so > > iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i $WAN_ETH -d $EXT_STAGING_HTTP_IP -j DNAT > --to-routing $INT_STAGING_HTTP_IP > iptables -t filter -A FORWARD etc..etc.. IMHO this will work but it is more of a nasty hack. This also leads to the possibility of things breaking down the road. Consider running a service on one of the DMZ hosts that is not NAT friendly. What will you do in that case? If you can avoid this I think it would be very wise to do so. > But then I thought to myself, "Why don't I just assign the actual IP to > the DMZ server?" and thus my journey began. *nod* I often have such conversations with my self. I love it when I win them and HATE it when I loose. > I'm now at the point where I really think it's a routing issue... agree of > disagree? My other option is to give up and say, also in a loud sinister > voice, "Rat's foiled again", but then realized and said in a loud sinister > voice : Never!!! Yes I agree hole heartedly. Don't give up. > Or... do I look into bridging. I have come across this as a possible > scenario before, but thought that perhaps it's not "exactly" what I'm > looking for. What "exactly" are you looking for? I don't see a solution with out doing some REALLY funky stuff in such as playing with IPs and / or adding a 4th NIC to the box so that the new interface can be connected to the DMZ network and give it an IP to use as the router for your LAN. Then you will need to do some really funky routing tables such as making the system act like two completely independent routers that know nothing about the other unless your traffic comes in or goes a specific pair of interfaces. > Impressed and thankful. Also, I think this will make for good reading > when someone searches the archives. Thank you very much. I have seen some very interesting questions come across this mail list in the past most of which did not really have any good documentation (that I'm aware of) on ways to solve them. I'm tempted to write some How To type documentation and submit it to someone else to host, possibly / probably the LARTC project (www.lartc.org). Grant. . . .
