Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 14:55:34 +1000 From: Nathan Aherne <nathan@reddog.com.au> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Cc: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>, freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kernel NAT issues Message-ID: <CA479F59-7408-4146-8F5A-85213DB64720@reddog.com.au> In-Reply-To: <5652B9EB.10805@freebsd.org> References: <94B91F98-DE01-4A10-8AB5-4193FE11AF3F@reddog.com.au> <20151013142301.B67283@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <C1C25100-FBD4-42F4-94F7-965B270D927F@reddog.com.au> <20151014232026.S15983@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <9908EC22-344F-4D0B-8930-7D2C70B084A1@reddog.com.au> <32DEEFB3-E41F-40CD-8E1A-520FB261C572@reddog.com.au> <564C8879.8070307@freebsd.org> <20151119032200.T27669@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <9D81BDD4-200C-40AB-AB24-B1112881E43A@reddog.com.au> <3BF360A8-35E6-4043-8AFF-87D983F29C66@reddog.com.au> <5652B9EB.10805@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Julian, Thank you for replying. I was completely off grid for a while and only = got back on it today. I thought that Vimage was probably the way to achieve what I want. The = main reason I was staying away from Vimage was the reported bugs with = it, another reason was the extra overhead. I would like to be able to = shutdown jails quite regularly so was worried the kernel panic bug or = memory leak bug might be a problem here. Is there any version of = Vimage/FreeBSD which is stable? Regards, Nathan > On 23 Nov 2015, at 5:02 pm, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> = wrote: >=20 > On 21/11/2015 10:06 AM, Nathan Aherne wrote: >> I had a bit of a think about how to describe what I am trying to = achieve. >>=20 >> I am treating each jail likes its own little "virtual machine=E2=80=9D.= The jail provides certain services, using things like nginx or nodejs, = php-fpm, mysql or postgresql. The jails can control connections to = themselves by configuring the firewall ports that are opened on the IP = their IP (10.0.0.0/16 or a public IP). I know the jails have no = firewall of their own, the firewall is configured from the host. >>=20 >> I want each jail or =E2=80=9Cvirtual machine=E2=80=9D to be able to = communicate with one another and the wider internet. When a jail does a = DNS query for another App jail, it may get a public IP on its own Host = (or it may get another host) and it has no issues being able to = communicate with another jail on the same host. >>=20 >> At the moment all of the above is working perfectly except for jail = to jail communication on the same host (when the communication is not = directly between 10.0.0.0/16 IP addresses). > this is pretty much exactly when vimage/vnet jails could be used to = great affect. > Is there a reason you are not doing that? Each jail has it's own = routing tables, addresses and (virtual) interfaces. >=20 > here's how I'd do it with vimage >=20 > +--------------+ > +---------------+ | servers > | +--------------+ > | > | +--------------+ > | +--------+ | > | | +--------------+ > | | > +--------+ +--+------+----+ > | iface | | bridge | > | +-----+ | > +--------+ +----+---------+ > | > | > | > | > | > | > +------------------------+---------------------+ > | | > | | > | NAT jail router | > | | > | | > +-------+--------+--------+-------+------------+ > | | | | > +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+ > | | | | | | | | > | | | | | | | | > | | | | | | | | jails > | | | | | | | | > +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ >=20 >=20 >=20 > however the hairpin idea might still be useful even in that scenario = if they don't know about each other's 'local' addresses, but do NAT'd = machines need to talk to each other by externeal addresses? >=20 > i Nathan >>> On 21 Nov 2015, at 9:12 am, Nathan Aherne <nathan@reddog.com.au> = wrote: >>>=20 >>> I am not exactly sure how to draw the setup so it doesn=E2=80=99t = confuse the situation. The setup is extremely simple (I am not running = vimage), jails running on the 10.0.0.0/16 (cloned lo1 interface) network = or with public IPs. The jails with private IPs are the HTTP app jails. = The Host runs a HTTP Proxy (nginx) and forwards traffic to each HTTP App = jail based on the URL it receives. The jails with public IPs are things = like database jails which cannot be proxied by the Host. >>>=20 >>> I can happily communicate with any jail from my laptop (externally) = but when I want one jail to communicate with another jail (for example = an App Jail communicating with the database jail) the traffic shows as = backwards (destination:port -> source:port) in the IPFW logs (tshark = shows the traffic correctly source:port -> destination:port). The jail = to jail traffic tries to go over the lo1 interface (backwards) and is = blocked. Below is some IPFW logs of an App jail (10.0.0.25) = communicating with the database jail (aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd) >>>=20 >>> IPFW logs. The lines labelled UNKNOWN is the check-state rule = (everything is labelled UNKNOWN even if it is KNOWN traffic) >>>=20 >>> Nov 21 08:49:07 host5 kernel: ipfw: 101 UNKNOWN TCP = eee.fff.gg.hhh:5432 10.0.0.25:42957 out via lo1 >>> Nov 21 08:49:07 host5 kernel: ipfw: 65501 Deny TCP = eee.fff.gg.hhh:5432 10.0.0.25:42957 out via lo1 >>> Nov 21 08:49:10 host5 kernel: ipfw: 101 UNKNOWN TCP = eee.fff.gg.hhh:5432 10.0.0.25:42957 out via lo1 >>> Nov 21 08:49:10 host5 kernel: ipfw: 65501 Deny TCP = eee.fff.gg.hhh:5432 10.0.0.25:42957 out via lo1 >>> Nov 21 08:49:13 host5 kernel: ipfw: 101 UNKNOWN TCP = eee.fff.gg.hhh:5432 10.0.0.25:42957 out via lo1 >>> Nov 21 08:49:13 host5 kernel: ipfw: 65501 Deny TCP = eee.fff.gg.hhh:5432 10.0.0.25:42957 out via lo1 >>> Nov 21 08:49:16 host5 kernel: ipfw: 101 UNKNOWN TCP = eee.fff.gg.hhh:5432 10.0.0.25:42957 out via lo1 >>> Nov 21 08:49:16 host5 kernel: ipfw: 65501 Deny TCP = eee.fff.gg.hhh:5432 10.0.0.25:42957 out via lo1 >>>=20 >>> tshark output (loopback and wan interface capture for port 5432) >>>=20 >>> Capturing on 'Loopback' and 'bce0' >>> 1 0.000000 10.0.0.25 -> eee.fff.gg.hhh TCP 64 42957=E2=86=92543= 2 [SYN] Seq=3D0 Win=3D65535 Len=3D0 MSS=3D16344 WS=3D64 SACK_PERM=3D1 = TSval=3D142885525 TSecr=3D0 >>> 2 3.013905 10.0.0.25 -> eee.fff.gg.hhh TCP 64 [TCP = Retransmission] 42957=E2=86=925432 [SYN] Seq=3D0 Win=3D65535 Len=3D0 = MSS=3D16344 WS=3D64 SACK_PERM=3D1 TSval=3D142888539 TSecr=3D0 >>> 3 6.241658 10.0.0.25 -> eee.fff.gg.hhh TCP 64 [TCP = Retransmission] 42957=E2=86=925432 [SYN] Seq=3D0 Win=3D65535 Len=3D0 = MSS=3D16344 WS=3D64 SACK_PERM=3D1 TSval=3D142891767 TSecr=3D0 >>> 4 9.451516 10.0.0.25 -> eee.fff.gg.hhh TCP 64 [TCP = Retransmission] 42957=E2=86=925432 [SYN] Seq=3D0 Win=3D65535 Len=3D0 = MSS=3D16344 WS=3D64 SACK_PERM=3D1 TSval=3D142894976 TSecr=3D0 >>> 5 12.654656 10.0.0.25 -> eee.fff.gg.hhh TCP 64 [TCP = Retransmission] 42957=E2=86=925432 [SYN] Seq=3D0 Win=3D65535 Len=3D0 = MSS=3D16344 WS=3D64 SACK_PERM=3D1 TSval=3D142898180 TSecr=3D0 >>> 6 15.863900 10.0.0.25 -> eee.fff.gg.hhh TCP 64 [TCP = Retransmission] 42957=E2=86=925432 [SYN] Seq=3D0 Win=3D65535 Len=3D0 = MSS=3D16344 WS=3D64 SACK_PERM=3D1 TSval=3D142901389 TSecr=3D0 >>> 7 22.076655 10.0.0.25 -> eee.fff.gg.hhh TCP 64 [TCP = Retransmission] 42957=E2=86=925432 [SYN] Seq=3D0 Win=3D65535 Len=3D0 = MSS=3D16344 WS=3D64 SACK_PERM=3D1 TSval=3D142907602 TSecr=3D0 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> If so, what sort of routing is setup on both host and jails? >>> Routing is what would be added by default (whatever the host system = adds when adding an IP), there is no custom routing. I have wondered if = I need to modify the routing table to get this to work. >>>=20 >>> Below is the output of netstat -rn >>>=20 >>> www.xxx.yy <http://www.xxx.yy/>.zzz is the gateway address >>> eee.fff.gg.hhh is the database jail public IP >>> aaa.bbb.cc.ddd is the public IP for NAT >>> lll.mmm.nn.ooo is the Hosts public IP >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Routing tables >>>=20 >>> Internet: >>> Destination Gateway Flags Netif Expire >>> default www.xxx.yy <http://www.xxx.yy/>.zzz UGS = bce0 >>> 10.0.0.1 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.2 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.3 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.4 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.5 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.6 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.7 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.8 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.9 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.10 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.11 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.12 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.13 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.14 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.15 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.16 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.17 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.18 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.19 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.20 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.21 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.22 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.23 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.24 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.25 link#6 UH lo1 >>> 10.0.0.26 link#6 UH lo1 >>> www.xxx.yy.zzz/25 <http://www.xxx.yy.zzz/25>; link#1 U = bce0 >>> eee.fff.gg.hhh link#1 UHS lo0 >>> eee.fff.gg.hhh/32 link#1 U bce0 >>> aaa.bbb.cc <http://aaa.bbb.cc/>.ddd link#1 UHS = lo0 >>> aaa.bbb.cc.ddd/32 link#1 U bce0 >>> lll.mmm.nn.ooo link#1 UHS lo0 >>> 127.0.0.1 link#5 UH lo0 >>>=20 >>> Internet6: >>> Destination Gateway = Flags Netif Expire >>> ::/96 ::1 UGRS = lo0 >>> ::1 link#5 UH = lo0 >>> ::ffff:0.0.0.0/96 ::1 UGRS = lo0 >>> fe80::/10 ::1 UGRS = lo0 >>> fe80::%lo0/64 link#5 U = lo0 >>> fe80::1%lo0 link#5 UHS = lo0 >>> ff01::%lo0/32 ::1 U = lo0 >>> ff02::/16 ::1 UGRS = lo0 >>> ff02::%lo0/32 ::1 U = lo0 >>>=20 >>>> Anything like ? >>>> = http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=3Dcontent&id=3DKB24639&actp=3D= search = <http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=3Dcontent&id=3DKB24639&actp=3D= search> >>> Yes just like that. >>>=20 >>> Regards, >>>=20 >>> Nathan >>>=20 >>>> On 19 Nov 2015, at 2:46 am, Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au = <mailto:smithi@nimnet.asn.au>> wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:17:29 +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: >>>>> On 11/18/15 8:40 AM, Nathan Aherne wrote: >>>>>> For some reason hairpin (loopback nat or nat reflection) does not = seem to >>>>>> be working, which is why I chose IPFW in the first place. >>>>> it would be good to see a diagram of what this actually means. >>>> Anything like ? >>>> = http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=3Dcontent&id=3DKB24639&actp=3D= search = <http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=3Dcontent&id=3DKB24639&actp=3D= search> >>>>=20 >>>> Was this so one jail can only access service/s provided by other = jail/s, >>>> both/all with internal NAT'd addresses, by using only the public = address >>>> and port of the 'router', which IIRC this is a single system with = jails? >>>>=20 >>>> If so, what sort of routing is setup on both host and jails? >>>>=20 >>>> (blindfolded, no idea where I've pinned the donkey's tail :) >>>>=20 >>>> cheers, Ian >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org mailing list >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-ipfw-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>=20 >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw > To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-ipfw-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA479F59-7408-4146-8F5A-85213DB64720>