On 08/15/2014 04:59 PM, lejeczek wrote:
yes, 172.17.166.199 replies,
to sort of narrow it down a bit
I on box B do
ping -I 172.25.12.101 172.17.166.199 = replies
ping -I 192.168.2.100 172.17.166.199 = does not
on a box behind B's 192.168.2.65, eg on 192.168.2.81 (winbox)
ping 172.17.167.41 = replies
feels like B's local routing, but where exactly?? no idea I have
You can try the following to debug the problem:
While the "ping -I 192.168.2.100 172.17.166.199" is in progress, please
run tcpdump on Box A (172.17.166.199) and observe.
1. If you are seeing the ICMP request with source IP 192.168.2.100,
however no ICMP reply seen on Box A, then either Box A doesn't have
route to 192.168.2.100, or Box A's iptables may block the reply.
2. If you are seeing both ICMP request and reply on Box A, but the reply
is not reaching Box B, most probably the intermediate machines don't
have route to 192.168.2.0/24.
In that case, one possible solution would be creating tunnel between Box
A and Box B to reach 192.168.2.0/24 network.
my routing tables:
main:
default dev em3 scope link
$publicNet.0/24 dev em3 proto kernel scope link src $publicNet.75
172.25.12.0/24 dev em2 proto kernel scope link src 172.25.12.203
192.168.2.0/24 dev em1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.100
192.168.2.10 dev ppp0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.100
192.168.2.64/27 dev br0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.65
private:
internal:
172.0.0.0/8 dev em2 scope link
192.168.4.0/24 via 172.25.12.215 dev em2
external:
default via $publicNet.62 dev em3
$publicNet.0/24 dev em3 scope link
172.25.12.214 dev em2 scope link
192.168.2.64/27 dev br0 scope link
0: from all lookup local
32763: from 172.0.0.0/8 lookup internal
32764: from $publicNet.0/24 lookup external
32766: from all lookup main
32767: from all lookup default
interfaces:
em1 192.168.2.100
em2 172.25.12.203
em3 $publicIP
br0 192.168.2.65
geee...
I couldn't find anything wrong/inconsistent in the above routing
configuration.
Regards,
Vignesh
On 13/08/14 12:12, Vigneswaran R wrote:
When you say "a 192.168.2.81 from behind box B can
ping172.17.166.199" (in your first mail), do you mean both the
following happen?
1) the icmp request from 192.168.2.81 is able to reach
172.17.166.199, and
2) the icmp reply from 172.17.166.199 is able to reach 192.168.2.81
In case, the 2nd is not happening, most probably the routers in
between (which are not in your control) not having route for
192.168.x.x network. In that case, you may have to create a tunnel
(or use VPN) between Box A and Box B to connect to 192.168.x.x network.
Regards,
Vignesh
On 08/13/2014 03:51 PM, lejeczek wrote:
I have had:
-A FORWARD -i em1 -o em2 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT
-A FORWARD -i em2 -o em1 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT
besides, also usual
-A FORWARD -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
-A FORWARD -p icmp -j ACCEPT
one strange thing is that when I tracepath on box B I see traffic
(to box A 172.17.167.x) wants to go out via em3(another psyh interface)
if it might be routing, then
I have 3 man made routing tables, one for each interface
private 192.xxxx
internal 172.xxx
external a public IP
I've left out private (empty, no rules no routes) for I thought
kernel would take care of it,
which it does (well, to certain extent) eg. 172.25.12.x net get to
box B's 192.168.2.100 and behind (this is internal table route rules)
but eg. 172.17.x.x which essentially goes through the same phys0
cannot get to box B's 192.168.2.100 (but can to box B's 172.25.12.101)
there are router(s) between 172.x.x.x (not mine) but then as above
they all can get to box B's psyh0 172.25.12.101
it's all a bit weird to me
On 11/08/14 12:54, Vigneswaran R wrote:
On 08/11/2014 03:31 PM, lejeczek wrote:
dear experts
I'm looking for ideas/suggestion why the following does not work
there is a:
* box A - 172.17.166.199 -- then there is 172./8 net -- box B -
172.25.12.101 (phys0), 192.168.2.100 (phys1) -- and one more net
behind 192.168.2.100
a 192.168.2.81 from behind box B can ping172.17.166.199
but not the other way around, box A cannot get to box B's phys1
but it does get to phys0
I can control box A but have no control over the nets between it
and box B's phys0
I can control box B
I thought my route rules on box B are complete, box A is a winbox
I though box B' firewall is ready
but I obviously miss something
there is no masquerading for phys0 nor phys1 one box B
It looks like the firewall (FORWARD chain) in B is not allowing
NEW connections from phys0 to phys1; only allowing ESTABLISHED
connections, which made the ICMP reply packets through.
Regards,
Vignesh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
