From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Wed Oct 9 19:50:57 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C8212D6A8 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 19:50:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "vps1.elischer.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46pPwK5Rzpz3R2G for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 19:50:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from Julian-MBP3.local (c-73-225-95-104.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [73.225.95.104]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x99JosdG006438 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Oct 2019 12:50:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Subject: Re: CARP and NAT question To: Julien Cigar Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: <20191008134851.GP2691@home.lan> <20191008155813.GS2691@home.lan> <20191009093454.GU2691@home.lan> From: Julian Elischer Message-ID: <2591c7ce-887e-0e38-bb69-01c1e0ba5bd4@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 12:50:49 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191009093454.GU2691@home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 46pPwK5Rzpz3R2G X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.92 / 15.00]; local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.93)[-0.926,0]; ASN(0.00)[asn:36236, ipnet:204.109.60.0/22, country:US]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-0.999,0] X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 19:50:57 -0000 On 10/9/19 2:34 AM, Julien Cigar wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 01:05:37PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: >> On 10/8/19 8:58 AM, Julien Cigar wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:20:34AM -0500, Matthew Grooms wrote: >>>> Hi Julien, >>> Hi Matthew, >>> >>>> It's not clear why you are trying to assign multiple carp IP address to >>>> two different interfaces from within the same IP subnet. Are you trying >>>> to fail over a 2nd carp address or are you trying to improve >>>> throughput/redundancy? If you just want to fail over a 2nd carp address, >>>> assign a 2nd alias to your first interface. If your trying to improve >>>> throughput/redundancy, assign both interfaces to a lagg and build your >>>> carp interfaces on top of that instead. >>>> >>> Currently outbound traffic from $net1 and $net2 (two private networks) >>> pass through the same network interface (igb0) (as you can see in (1) >>> in my previous post) on the router. I'd like to prevent that >>> $net2 saturates the interface and slow down traffic from $net1 (which is >>> more important). I could lagg and build CARP on top of that but it >>> wouldn't prevent $net2 to saturate the interface (unless I'm plugin ALTQ >>> of course, which I'd like to avoid). >>> >>>> -Matthew >>>> >>>> On 10/8/2019 8:48 AM, Julien Cigar wrote: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to NAT outbound traffic from two different private networks >>>>> through two different interfaces, with CARP on top. I have 4 public IPS >>>>> available (193.x.x.89, 193.x.x.90, 193.x.x.91, 193.x.x.92). >>>>> >>>>> I have two redundant router/firewall running FreeBSD 12 with CARP and >>>>> PF with the following: (1) which works well, but all traffic >>>>> goes through the same interface. >>>>> >>>>> So I'd like to switch to something like (2), which will not work (lines >>>>> 5 and 13 are not valid) and I'm wondering if I could use something like >>>>> (3) ..? >>>>> >>>>> Thank you! >>>>> Julien >>>>> >>>>> (1) https://gist.github.com/silenius/4f6173a9b6690292c2174ab3bb89d292 >>>>> (2) https://gist.github.com/silenius/da9be7e74e9861fa55f927d194e3e410 >>>>> (3) https://gist.github.com/silenius/b237565b0d181248ff80ea296e5537db >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >>>> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> can you draw it? > yes, see https://ibb.co/mv5RPM9 so, you have several ways of doing this: one is to assign a different routing table to each class of traffic. Each table has  a different default route, sending data out to a different external interface. Each interface out is NAT'd so that the return packets will come back the same way. But you only have a single pipe to the internet, So one wonders how that helps with redundancy? > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"