Re: IPTables and different types of NAT

[Grant Taylor <gtaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> No. Please read more carefully the definitions of "restricted cone NAT" 
> and "port restricted cone NAT". Neither can be implemented with iptables 
> because they do not fit in the per-connection model.

"""With restricted cone NAT, all requests from the same internal IP 
address and port are mapped to the same external IP address and port. 
Unlike a full cone NAT, an external host can send a packet to the 
internal host only if the internal host had previously sent a packet to 
it."""

"""Port restricted cone NAT or symmetric NAT is like a restricted cone 
NAT, but the restriction includes port numbers. Specifically, an 
external host can send a packet to a particular port on the internal 
host only if the internal host had previously sent a packet from that 
port to the external host."""

The only other thing that comes to mind is that IPTables by its self 
does not by default filter based on connection(s) and / or state. 
However, there are match extensions that can be used to augment a basic 
IPTables rule to do just that.  I.e.  CONNMARK in conjunction with MARK.

> "Symmetric NAT" works on a per-connection basis and is the NAT form that 
> is the easiest to implement with iptables using SNAT or MASQUERADE.

I understood Symetric NAT to be a form of "one to many" or "many to 
many" NATing.  The key part being the "... to many" in where multiple 
external IPs would be used.  I know that it is possible (though I have 
not done it) to specify a range to SNAT traffic with IPTables to a range 
of IP addresses.  I was not aware that MASQUERADE would do the same 
thing.  I was under the impression that MASQUERADE used the single IP on 
an interface as the IP to SNAT traffic to.



Grant. . . .