Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:34:03 -0200 From: "Luiz Otavio O Souza" <lists.br@gmail.com> To: "Eduardo Meyer" <dudu.meyer@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: Multiple Routing Tables (FIB) + IPFW problem as (I?) expected Message-ID: <DBDE96CC23B142FDAE3AEA0B7BC7278B@adnote989> References: <d3ea75b30901160414x353c9fb2ke1f31489bb8d5107@mail.gmail.com> <4970DB6C.4030200@elischer.org> <d3ea75b30901190740i35873cc6u3061193ea4eba4e3@mail.gmail.com> <8461C1DA26D349A7B4AA821D8461A923@adnote989> <d3ea75b30901200721g231e99f1uaefcc8960888bf9c@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>> obviously you did some other commands here..
>>>> something generated 2 million packets..
>>>
>>> Julian, its a production enviroment, firewall was up for a few
>>> minutes. Thats the reason.
>>>
>>>> I was thinking of adding a 'reroute' ipfw keyword.. kind of like
>>>> 'fwd {original dest} ip from any to any'
>>>> because 'fwd' does cause the routing decision to be redone.
>>>>
>>>> The fib of the process that opens the socket controls where packets
>>>> from
>>>> the
>>>> local machine are sent.
>>>
>>> divert does cause this too, not "not fib X" seems to work fine...
>>>
>>> I wish you could make the "setfib" action be kept in state with
>>> keep-state only for the static rules, but I guess it will be done for
>>> all dynamic rules too, since keep-state makes dynamic rules repeat the
>>> static one, right?
>>>
>>> would something like
>>>
>>> ipfw add prob 0.5 setfib 1 all from X to any out keep-state
>>>
>>> be used to balance (per session) between FIB tables?
>>
>> divert ? i think you want to say natd...
>>
>> Again... you are using setfib after the route table decisions...
>>
>> To use natd with setfib you need to setup two instances of natd, one for
>> each uplink interface:
>>
>> ipfw add divert 8668 all from any to any via ${outnic1}
>> ipfw add divert 8669 all from any to any via ${outnic2}
>>
>> And on internal nic:
>>
>> ipfw add setfib 1 tcp from ${inet} to any 80 IN VIA ${iif}
>>
>> So the http traffic will be routed thru fib 1 and should appear on
>> correct
>> uplink interface, and natd can do his the dirty work.
>>
>> I don't known about prob... you will need to send the connection setup
>> packets (for tcp) and subsequent packets through the same link. i don't
>> know
>> if you can achive this with prob + keep-state.
>>
>> Luiz
>>
>
> Yes, you are right. Now its way easier to do policy routing and
> advanced PBR. However Im still trying to balance outgoing traffic
> throught multiple FIBs, per session. But
>
> add prob 0.5 setfib 1 tcp from ${inet} to any 80 in via ${iif} setup
> keep-state
>
> is not working as I expected...
>
> Some sessions just fail. I guess I need some special behavior on the
> "keep-state" action.
>
Have you tried the check-state rule ? just an educated guess... no real clue
about that... sorry.
You will need to dig by yourself on this... take a closer look at dynamics
rules created by your rule and try to determine the better way to achive
what you want.
Luiz
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?DBDE96CC23B142FDAE3AEA0B7BC7278B>