On Sunday 18 September 2005 14:14, iptables-user wrote:
I created what I thought was a simple 3 network router which worked
great for 4 or 5 days, but has gone bonkers. Restarting it doesn't
make it work correctly, neither does rebooting. I have a hunch that
something in a cache somewhere may have expired or one of the flags
in the /proc tree changed but I sure don't know what.
The /proc tree is dynamic; it does not persist across reboots. If
something is changing it, it's being done by the OS startup scripts.
I'm using unpatched iptables-1.2.11 on fc4 with unmodified kernel.
Very close to 100% chance that it will work when set up properly. A
common error is to omit something important from a custom kernel, but
distro kernels tend not to have those problems.
Box is setup as a router with a WAN, DMZ, and LAN. WAN traffic
DNAT'd to DMZ works. DMZ and LAN through WAN works. The problems show
up in LAN to DMZ traffic.
Incomplete description. Does the LAN and the DMZ have different
netblocks? What IP addresses are being accessed by LAN clients? Are you
doing the DNAT for those?
From LAN to/through DMZ ping (icmp), dns (udp and tcp), and ssh work
fine. pop3 and smtp work, but only after a looong wait, much longer
than a dns timeout. http works on one DMZ'd server, but on another
webserver with 2 IPs will only connect to one of the IPs (the one
that the webserver is NOT listening to, but works correctly for WAN
traffic).
/me reaches for the aspirin bottle
Sniffing with tcpdump on DMZ for pop3 or smtp traffic shows
syn/ack/ack followed by a minutes long wait. Sniffing for http on
DMZ shows correct traffic for D.M.Z.12, but for D.M.Z.11 never shows
up on the DMZ interface (11 and 12 are on the same dev). Switching
the order the addresses are added to the interface has no effect.
All nics on all machines are brought up with "ifconfig ethX up" and
addresses are attached using "ip addr add a.b.c.d/nm dev ethX".
Default routes are created, and on the router
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward is set to "1".
On all machines ifconfig, ip addr show, and route display expected
results.
The puzzler is that it worked so well for 4 or 5 days.
More of it is puzzling to me. I think we missed part of the story.
Here is the iptables rule set which gets loaded using
iptables-restore.
########## VERY BASIC 3-LEGGED FIREWALL/ROUTER ###########
#
# [eth0] LAN is L.A.N.1 /24 (private)
# [eth1] WAN is W.A.N.1-5 /29 (dsl to internet)
Your iptables box is listening on all of these WAN IP's? Is it a /28?
# [eth2] DMZ is D.M.Z.1 /24 (servers)
Are these another RFC 1918 netblock? If so why are you obscuring the
IP's?
*nat
# remember: only NEW connections go through PREROUTING
:PREROUTING ACCEPT [0:0]
:POSTROUTING ACCEPT [0:0]
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0]
:GO_1 - [0:0]
:GO_2 - [0:0]
:GO_3 - [0:0]
:GO_4 - [0:0]
:GO_5 - [0:0]
# filtering belongs in filter table...
Amen, brother, preach on!
-A PREROUTING -p icmp -j RETURN
What does a RETURN do from a builtin chain? I don't understand what
you're trying to do with that rule. If it works like ACCEPT, in the nat
table that just means no NAT will be done.
# divvy ip's into chains; it's faster
-A PREROUTING -d W.A.N.1 -j GO_1
-A PREROUTING -d W.A.N.2 -j GO_2
-A PREROUTING -d W.A.N.3 -j GO_3
-A PREROUTING -d W.A.N.4 -j GO_4
-A PREROUTING -d W.A.N.5 -j GO_5
So each WAN IP has its own chain in nat PREROUTING. Not sure why.
# round-robin source ip's make visual log inspection easier for me
But I don't see any logging anyway, are we missing something here?
-A POSTROUTING -o WAN -j SNAT --to-source W.A.N.1-W.A.N.5
And I don't understand the benefit in this. I'd use a single IP for the
SNAT'ed LAN clients and save the others for other uses.
# DNAT maps
# eg: -I GO_3 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination D.M.Z.100
# would map http://W.A.N.3 to http://D.M.Z.100
Okay, so it's a DNAT-style DMZ using RFC 1918 addresses for the DMZ? I
wouldn't do this. I'd use the "real" IP's in the DMZ. Use rules in
filter FORWARD to control access from the outside. Less need for
aspirin, and more likely to make it Just Work As Intended.
You have omitted the actual DNAT mapping rules? This is confusing.
Please don't obfuscate your issue beyond the ability to troubleshoot
it, if you want help with it.
-A GO_1 -j DROP
-A GO_2 -j DROP
-A GO_3 -j DROP
-A GO_4 -j DROP
-A GO_5 -j DROP
But brother, practice what thou preacheth! You said you would not do
filtering in the nat table, and yet, you do! Why?
You have left important parts out, but these DROP rules could be your
culprit.
COMMIT
#
*filter
:INPUT DROP [0:0]
:FORWARD DROP [0:0]
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0]
# ok, so i'm an idiot. i like to talk to myself
-A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT
# wan is shy
-A INPUT -i WAN -p icmp -j DROP
Not a good idea to put this rule here. Some ICMP you will want to get,
even if you block certain types.
# but the rest of us aren't :)
-A INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT
# allow router administration from lan
-A INPUT -s L.A.N.0/255.255.255.0 -d L.A.N.1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22
-j ACCEPT
No --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT rule here? I use a "State"
chain with this rule, and jump to it from both INPUT and FORWARD, at
(or very near) the top of both chains. This would allow you to get the
ICMP replies as alluded above.
# let it route...
-A FORWARD -o DMZ -j ACCEPT
# let it route...
-A FORWARD -o WAN -j ACCEPT
# lan offers no services
-A FORWARD -o LAN -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
COMMIT
I think if you trace what is happening to each connection you might
figure this out. But still, I'd recommend doing away with the DNAT DMZ
and using routed IP's instead.
