From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 2 10:51:25 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF0DB106566B for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:51:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sudakov@sibptus.tomsk.ru) Received: from relay2.tomsk.ru (relay2.tomsk.ru [212.73.124.8]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12C1C8FC1A for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:51:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sudakov@sibptus.tomsk.ru) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamd daemon 0.93.1 for FreeBSD at relay2.tomsk.ru Received: from admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru (account sudakov@sibptus.tomsk.ru [212.73.125.240] verified) by relay2.tomsk.ru (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.13) with ESMTPSA id 12230656 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:51:22 +0700 Received: (from sudakov@localhost) by admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id n32ApMwc044575 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 17:51:22 +0700 (OMSST) (envelope-from sudakov@sibptus.tomsk.ru) X-Authentication-Warning: admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru: sudakov set sender to sudakov@sibptus.tomsk.ru using -f Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 17:51:22 +0700 From: Victor Sudakov To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20090402105122.GA44002@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru> Mail-Followup-To: Victor Sudakov , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <20090402055113.GA35989@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru> <20090402084319.GB40576@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Organization: AO "Svyaztransneft", SibPTUS X-PGP-Key: http://vas.tomsk.ru/vas.asc Subject: Re: keep-state and divert X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:51:25 -0000 Michael Powell wrote: > > > > With my example ruleset below, where would you put the keep-state > > option? > > > > > > 00100 divert 8668 ip from any to table(1) out via rl0 > > 00200 deny log logamount 100 ip from 10.0.0.0/8 to any out via rl0 > > 00300 deny log logamount 100 ip from 172.16.0.0/12 to any out via rl0 > > 00400 deny log logamount 100 ip from 192.168.0.0/16 to any out via rl0 > > > > 00500 divert 8668 ip from table(1) to any in via rl0 > > 00600 check-state > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > Yes - the check-state line is required first in order to make use of the > keep-state line later in the ruleset. > > 00650 allow ip from table(1) to any in via rl0 keep-state It should be "out" here, not "in", because I want to permit outbound traffic and corresponding return traffic. You might think of something like 650 allow ip from any to table(1) out via rl0 keep-state However, if we place the "keep-state" rule at 650, only already diverted packets will reach it, and it will be useless because the src address will already have become the public one. I need a rule which would permit return traffic to the RFC1913 hosts (i.e. after dealiasing). -- Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN sip:sudakov@sibptus.tomsk.ru