Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 00:00:34 +0300 From: Lytochkin Boris <lytboris@gmail.com> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ermal_Lu=E7i?= <eri@freebsd.org> Cc: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, sem@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Subject: Re: svn commit: r200183 - head/sbin/ipfw Message-ID: <933fa9790912071300u78e22dciec834bb3551311a4@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <933fa9790912071230n56f27f5bhcdec44d22a1c5126@mail.gmail.com> References: <200912061804.nB6I4R38027652@svn.freebsd.org> <4B1D437F.4050601@elischer.org> <4B1D4723.5090908@elischer.org> <200912072029.05907.max@love2party.net> <933fa9790912071145k4d97c177qc6f963ba0ffbb13@mail.gmail.com> <9a542da30912071221t289a57a8gdfbb12c8a0b84753@mail.gmail.com> <933fa9790912071230n56f27f5bhcdec44d22a1c5126@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Oups, everything is OK with route-to and reply-to in pf, my bad. config for my situation must be like this scrub in all fragment reassemble pass in quick reply-to (em0 10.60.128.254) inet from any to 10.60.128.0/24 flags S/SA keep state pass in quick reply-to (em0 10.70.128.254) inet from any to 10.70.128.0/24 flags S/SA keep state pass in quick reply-to (em0 10.71.128.254) inet from any to 10.71.128.0/24 flags S/SA keep state pass in quick reply-to (em0 10.72.128.254) inet from any to 10.72.128.0/24 flags S/SA keep state pass in quick all flags S/SA keep state or incoming traffic whould create keep-state wit pass in and would not go down to route-to rules. or use per-interface keep states. On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Lytochkin Boris <lytboris@gmail.com> wrote= : > there are multiple addresses on em0 (for example): > > 95.108.197.225/27 > 10.60.128.225/24 > 10.61.128.225/24 > ... > 10.70.128.225/24 > > default router is in 95.108.197.225/27 network. > > 10.X addresses are used for SLB - SLB router does DNAT and forward > client's connection to this node, so node should forward all packets > from 10.X addresses to .254 - SLB router IPs. > > ipfw config would be something like > =3D=3D=3D=3D > ipfw add 60 fwd 10.60.128.254 ip from 10.60.128.0/24 to any out > ipfw add 61 fwd 10.61.128.254 ip from 10.61.128.0/24 to any out > ... > ipfw add 70 fwd 10.70.128.254 ip from 10.70.128.0/24 to any out > allow 65534 ip from any to any > =3D=3D=3D=3D > > pf variant will be accordingly > =3D=3D=3D=3D > scrub in all fragment reassemble > pass in all flags S/SA keep state > pass out quick route-to (em0 10.60.128.254) inet from 10.60.128.0/24 > to any flags S/SA keep state > ... > pass out quick route-to (em0 10.60.128.254) inet from 10.70.128.0/24 > to any flags S/SA keep state > =3D=3D=3D=3D > > My box is a cluster node, not router, just simple policy-based routing re= quired > > > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Ermal Lu=E7i <eri@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Lytochkin Boris <lytboris@gmail.com> wro= te: >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Max Laier <max@love2party.net> wrote: >>> [cut] >>> > I just tested an install of r197983 (9.0-CURRENT) that I had on a >>> > test-box and >>> > route-to works as it is supposed to - AFAICT. =A0FWIW, pf sets sin_le= n for >>> > every >>> > use. >>> > >>> > Might be a problem/mis-understanding in the OPs configuration that is >>> > the >>> > issue here? >>> > >>> > I'll follow up to the thread on -net@ is a second. >>> >>> I posted my pf config in original message to -net@: >>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >>> scrub in all fragment reassemble >>> pass in all flags S/SA keep state >>> pass out quick route-to (em0 10.60.128.254) inet from 10.60.128.0/24 >>> to any flags S/SA keep state >>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >>> >>> Pretty simple. Even when forward is disabled packets that are matched >>> by route-to rule are forwarded to default gateway instead of specified >>> in route-to. And I checked rtalloc_ign_fib() arguments when using pf - >>> seems that pf does not use this function to lookup route-to route. >>> >>> +sem@ >>> >> >> My crystal ball is broken. >> Explain your freebsd config, your network topology, some debug output an= d >> then it can be considered useful. >> >> There are many people using route-to on FreeBSD 8 so it would have come = up >> before. >> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Boris Lytochkin >> >> >> >> -- >> Ermal >> >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?933fa9790912071300u78e22dciec834bb3551311a4>