Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 19 Dec 2001 16:33:09 -0500
From:      "Blake Crosby" <dev@samurai.com>
To:        "Forrest W. Christian" <forrestc@imach.com>, "Jim Flowers" <jflowers@ezo.net>
Cc:        <portmaster-users@portmasters.com>, <freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   RE: Infrastructure Design with Portmasters and FreeBSD/Zebra (long)
Message-ID:  <JAEEIJKIHAONENKPFCCPGENKCBAA.dev@samurai.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0112191352570.18716-100000@workhorse.iMach.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hmm

I am pretty sure the rogers@home network here uses 10/8 network space for
their internal routing:

A traceroute from my box on the rogers@home network to yahoo.com (abridged):

 2. 24.101.32.1
 3. 24.112.249.1
 4. 10.0.185.1
 5. 24.7.74.29
 6. 24.7.69.41

Notice that 10/8 ip address in there (there used to be more)

Blake

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
> [mailto:owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Forrest W. Christian
> Sent: December 19, 2001 4:20 PM
> To: Jim Flowers
> Cc: portmaster-users@portmasters.com; freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
> Subject: Re: Infrastructure Design with Portmasters and FreeBSD/Zebra
> (long)
>
>
> I'm going to be very specific about this:
>
> Using 1918 space as you have described is bad.  Very bad.
>
> To make a long story short, if you use 1918 space, it will break things in
> weird and unusual ways.  The reason for this is a lot of providers discard
> any packets with a source address of 1918.  Certain internet protocols
> require each router along the path to be able to reply with ICMP messages
> with their own address.  If they are in the 1918 space, these will most
> likely be discarded causing the functionality which needs these to break.
>
> Most notably, this will break MTU path discovery which can cause a whole
> set of other problems which I won't go into.  It also will prevent ICMP
> Source qwench messages which are used to provide for some additional flow
> control by certain ip stacks.
>
> The only place to use 1918 space is behind a NAT box or on a network which
> will never be connected to the internet.
>
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Jim Flowers wrote:
>
> > Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:55:06 -0500
> > From: Jim Flowers <jflowers@ezo.net>
> > To: portmaster-users@portmasters.com, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
> > Subject: Infrastructure Design with Portmasters and FreeBSD/Zebra (long)
> >
> > Our current ISP infrastructure has a head-end connection to the
> Internet and
> > a number of remote POPs at the end of point-to-point connections.  The
> > Internet routers are IRX-211s and the pop-connecting routers
> are IRX-114s.
> > Customer connections at the pops include dialup via PM3s and
> point-to-point
> > dedicated via fbsd routers.  5 subnetted class C address blocks are used
> > including /30 on the numbered point-to-point links.  Routing is ospf
> > (Zebra-0.92a on fbsd).  Additional Internet sources are being added to
> > several of the POPs using BGP routing as are some inter-pop
> telecom links
> > with ospf.
> >
> > I am considering renumbering all of the interior (to the Internet)
> > infrastructure subnets to RFC1918 private addresses, primarily
> to promote
> > security but also to reclaim public addresses.  Customers, both
> dialup and
> > dedicated, would still have public addresses routed by ospf
> over the RFC1918
> > infrastructure to allow full access to Internet services.  Local servers
> > that require access to the Internet connections would have
> public addresses
> > on their own network allowing connections to the Internet via
> the RFC1918
> > infrastructure.  Customers would also have the option to connect via a
> > secured public subnet.
> >
> > I question that a PM3 with a private Ethernet interface and a public
> > assigned address pool will work.  I think connections would
> just be routed
> > by ospf instead of proxy arp so it would be OK.  Is this correct?
> >
> > This layout also relies on a web proxy (squid) host with a
> secondary public
> > address on the RFC1918 subnetwork to allow http connections to Internet
> > hosts and other cache servers.  Eliminates loading router to unsecured
> > public subnet that would result if the web proxy host were placed there.
> > Seems a compromise to the concept though explicit filtering at
> the IRX-211
> > could minimize the vulnerability.  Opinions?
> >
> > I am also thinking of connecting all 3 subnets (private, public
> and public
> > secured) to a vlan segmented level 2 switch to take away
> sniffing capability
> > from a compromised host (mirrored to the MGMT host for management use).
> > Will this introduce additional problems?
> >
> > Any other caveats?
> >
> > Alternate suggestions?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Fixed width charcter spacing ASCII map follow:
> >
> > POP layout
> >
> > ================= Internet
> >     |
> >     |                    ]--------> to previous POP (RFC1019)
> >    [IRX-211]     [IRX-411]--------> to next POP (RFC1918)
> >     |    |           |
> >     |    +--+--------+-------+-------+---- RFC1918 subnet
> >     |       |        |       |       |
> >     |     [W/P]     [R]    [PM3]    [R]
> >     |                |       |       +--------> ptp
> >     |                |       Unsecure Customers (public)
> >     |                |
> >     |                +----------+-- unsecured public subnet
> >     |                           |
> >     |    [W/P]    [MGMT]    [servers]
> >     |      |         |
> >     +------+---------+-------+---- secured (public) subnet
> >            |         |       |
> >        [servers]   [PM3]    [R]
> >        (secure)      |       +--------> ptp
> >                      Secure Customers (public)
> >
> > IRX-211 and PM3 for unsecured network uses minimal filtering
> > IRX-211 and PM3 for secured network uses maximal filtering
> > RFC1918 addresses can only be reached from secure subnet
> > Unsecure customers may use W/P (web proxy)
> > Secure customers must use W/P
> > Management from Internet requires first to connect to MGMT host
> > Management by dialup to directly connected subnet only
> >
> >
> > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> > with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
> >
>
> - Forrest W. Christian (forrestc@imach.com) AC7DE
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Innovation Machine Ltd.                              P.O. Box 5749
> http://www.imach.com/                                Helena, MT  59604
> Home of PacketFlux Technogies and BackupDNS.com         (406)-442-6648
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>       Protect your personal freedoms - visit http://www.lp.org/
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
>
>


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?JAEEIJKIHAONENKPFCCPGENKCBAA.dev>