Fw: Fw: [Bugme-new] [Bug 4180] New: masquarade and source ip

Fw: Fw: [Bugme-new] [Bug 4180] New: masquarade and source ip

[David S. Miller]

Didn't this get changed on purpose?

Begin forwarded message:

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:18:22 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: netdev@oss.sgi.com
Cc: spied@yandex.ru
Subject: Fw: [Bugme-new] [Bug 4180] New: masquarade and source ip




Begin forwarded message:

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:16:56 -0800
From: bugme-daemon@osdl.org
To: bugme-new@lists.osdl.org
Subject: [Bugme-new] [Bug 4180] New: masquarade and source ip


http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4180

           Summary: masquarade and source ip
    Kernel Version: 2.6.10
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
             Owner: laforge@gnumonks.org
         Submitter: spied@yandex.ru


i try next on router (eth0 - inernet, eth1 - localnet):

ip addr add eth0 1.2.3.4
ip addr add eth0 2.3.4.5

ip route add default via 2.3.4.6 src 2.3.4.5

iptables  -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 10.0.0.0/8 -d ! 10.0.0.0/8 -j MASQUERADE

if i do ping www.google.com from router source ip is 2.3.4.5, but if i do ping
from local network source ip is 1.2.3.4 (i think it's wrong)

with older kernel source ip is always set to 2.3.4.5

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

Re: Fw: Fw: [Bugme-new] [Bug 4180] New: masquarade and source ip

[David S. Miller]

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:15:50 +0100
Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> wrote:

> >Didn't this get changed on purpose?
>
> Yes. One thing we could do to make it more consistent is treat
> local packets the same way as forwarded ones in MASQUERADE, then
> at least all packets would have the same source address. This check
> currently prevents local packets from beeing masqueraded:
> 
>         /* FIXME: For the moment, don't do local packets, breaks
>            testsuite for 2.3.49 --RR */
>         if ((*pskb)->sk)
>                 return NF_ACCEPT;
> 
> I'm not sure if we can simply remove it, maybe Rusty remembers :)

Ok, when you figure out what's going on please post the analysis to
netdev et al., and in particular Andrew or Stephen, so the bugzilla
can get closed properly.

Thanks.

Re: Fw: Fw: [Bugme-new] [Bug 4180] New: masquarade and source ip

[Patrick McHardy]

David S. Miller wrote:

>Didn't this get changed on purpose?
>
Yes. One thing we could do to make it more consistent is treat
local packets the same way as forwarded ones in MASQUERADE, then
at least all packets would have the same source address. This check
currently prevents local packets from beeing masqueraded:

        /* FIXME: For the moment, don't do local packets, breaks
           testsuite for 2.3.49 --RR */
        if ((*pskb)->sk)
                return NF_ACCEPT;

I'm not sure if we can simply remove it, maybe Rusty remembers :)

Regards
Patrick

>
>Begin forwarded message:
>
>if i do ping www.google.com from router source ip is 2.3.4.5, but if i do ping
>from local network source ip is 1.2.3.4 (i think it's wrong)
>
>with older kernel source ip is always set to 2.3.4.5
>
>

Re: Fw: Fw: [Bugme-new] [Bug 4180] New: masquarade and source ip

[Rusty Russell]

On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 12:14 -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:15:50 +0100
> Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> wrote:
> 
> > >Didn't this get changed on purpose?
> >
> > Yes. One thing we could do to make it more consistent is treat
> > local packets the same way as forwarded ones in MASQUERADE, then
> > at least all packets would have the same source address. This check
> > currently prevents local packets from beeing masqueraded:
> > 
> >         /* FIXME: For the moment, don't do local packets, breaks
> >            testsuite for 2.3.49 --RR */
> >         if ((*pskb)->sk)
> >                 return NF_ACCEPT;
> > 
> > I'm not sure if we can simply remove it, maybe Rusty remembers :)

Remove it; nothing should break.  The network code used to hate local
packets getting changed, but we do the right thing these days (if not,
that's another bug).

> Ok, when you figure out what's going on please post the analysis to
> netdev et al., and in particular Andrew or Stephen, so the bugzilla
> can get closed properly.

We vastly simplified the masquerade code to use inet_select_addr(),
because its purpose is for dynamic links.  This user should be using
SNAT to specify exactly what he/she wants.

Rusty.
-- 
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver -- Richard Braakman