Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:33:35 -0800
From:      Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org>
To:        Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>, Don Lewis <truckman@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org, fjwcash@gmail.com
Subject:   Re: ipwf dummynet vs. kernel NAT and firewall rules
Message-ID:  <56E1DA1F.5030703@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160310165323.U61428@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
References:  <201603092302.u29N2IYm012240@gw.catspoiler.org> <20160310165323.U61428@sola.nimnet.asn.au>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On 9/03/2016 10:53 PM, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 15:02:18 -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
>   > On  9 Mar, Don Lewis wrote:
>   > > On  9 Mar, Don Lewis wrote:
>   > >> On  9 Mar, Don Lewis wrote:
>   > >>> On  9 Mar, Freddie Cash wrote:
>   > >>>>
>   > >>>> ?Do you have the sysctl net.inet.ip.fw.one_pass set to 0 or 1?
>   > >>>
>   > >>> Aha, I've got it set to 1.
>
> I observe that in 99 cases out of 100, the default of 1 is undesired,
> but it's too late to do anything but advise people - thanks Freddie!
>
> [..]
>
>   > >> I just read the fine man page and is says that after re-injection the
>   > >> packet starts with the next rule ... cool!
>
> Make sure the next rule has a higher number; in some (but not all?) uses
> of one_pass actually restart with the next higher-numbered rule.

the code in reinjection of divert packets takes the rule number that 
matches, adds one and skips to that (or higher).
I think dummynet does the same but have not checked.

>
> [..]
>
>   > It looks like the problem was an interaction between
>   > net.inet.ip.fw.one_pass, my NAT rules, and my keep-state rules.  My nat
>   > rule was:
>   >   nat 123 ip4 from any to any via re0
>   > so it was matching by outgoing DNS queries even though they didn't need
>   > to be NATed.  I think that when net.inet.ip.fw.one_pass=1, the DNS
>   > queries were totally being handled by NAT and not using the keep-state
>   > rule at all.  I'm wondering if net.inet.ip.fw.one_pass=0 was interfering
>   > with setting the ipfw dynamic state and the response packet was getting
>   > blocked after it was reinjected by NAT.
>   >
>   > In any case, changing my NAT rules to this make things work:
>   >
>   >   nat 123 ip4 from internal/24 to any out xmit re0
>   >   nat 123 ip4 from any to me in recv re0
>
> 'in recv' and 'out xmit' are always clearer than 'via', and someimes (as
> here) necessary.  Another way, assuming you want to NAT everything from
> internal net(s) would be:
>
>       nat 123 ip4 from any to any out xmit re0 recv $internal_if
>
>   > The "me" in the second rule should really be the address of re0, but
>   > that's not readily available.
>
> 'me' is fine in most cases, unless you are having other addresses routed
> to you, eg an external /29 or such, if those addresses also match 'me'.
>
> Glad you've got it sorted.
>
> 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"
>




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56E1DA1F.5030703>