Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:15:13 -0600 From: Gary Aitken <vagabond@blackfoot.net> To: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Cc: lists.dan@gmail.com, OpenSlate ChalkDust <openslateproj@gmail.com> Subject: Re: ipfw confusion Message-ID: <52128AE1.8000102@blackfoot.net> In-Reply-To: <CAAuBV2d1Fv=mUnJeY6j%2BS_=O859aPpBV1bEc_JFa_cdpy1=Ryw@mail.gmail.com> References: <5211B5E1.6040000@blackfoot.net> <CAAuBV2d1Fv=mUnJeY6j%2BS_=O859aPpBV1bEc_JFa_cdpy1=Ryw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 08/19/13 11:53, OpenSlate ChalkDust wrote: > On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Gary Aitken <vagabond@blackfoot.net> wrote: > >> I'm having some weird ipfw behavior, or it seems weird to me, and am >> looking >> for an explaination and then a way out. >> >> ipfw list >> ... >> 21109 allow tcp from any to 12.32.44.142 dst-port 53 in via tun0 setup >> keep-state >> 21129 allow tcp from any to 12.32.36.65 dst-port 53 in via tun0 setup >> keep-state >> ... >> 65534 deny log logamount 5 ip from any to any >> >> tail -f messages >> Aug 18 23:33:06 nightmare named[914]: client 188.231.152.46#63877: error >> sending response: permission denied >> >> 12.32.36.65 is the addr of the internal interface (xl0) on the firewall >> and is the public dns server. >> 12.32.44.142 is the addr of the external interface (tun0) which is bridged >> on a >> dsl line. >> >> It appears that a dns request was allowed in, but the response was not >> allowed >> back out. It seems to me the above rules 21109 and 21129 should have >> allowed >> the request in and the response back out. >> >> It's possible a request could come in on 12.32.44.142, >> which is why 21109 is present; >> although I know I am getting failures to reply to refresh requests >> from a secondary addressed to 12.32.36.65 >> >> What am I missing? >> >> I think you need explict rules like > > nnnnn allow tcp from 12.32.44.142 to any dst-port 53 out via tun0 setup > keep-state Why would rules like that be necessary, given the conversation is initiated from the outside? Shouldn't "setup keep-state" let the whole conversation, both directions, through? On 08/19/13 13:36, Dan Lists wrote: > Do you have a check-state rule earlier in your rules? > > 1000 check-state Yes: 00500 check-state
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52128AE1.8000102>