From: Zoilo Gomez <zoilo@xs4all.nl>
To: lartc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [LARTC] Two outbound internet links, using one network interface
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 10:14:11 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4528CF73.7010706@xs4all.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <45266C57.4010106@ma-isp.com>
Dashamir Hoxha wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to categorize the network traffic and to send it out
> across two different providers.
> For this I mark the packets in the firewall (in the PREROUTING chain
> of table mangle),
> and then use another routing table for the marked packets, which has a
> different gateway
> from the main routing table. Basicaly I am following the cookbook
> example in this page:
> http://linux-ip.net/html/adv-multi-internet.html
> with some small changes and modifications.
>
> The most important difference is that I am trying to use just one
> external network interface,
> which is connected through a hub/switch to both of the ISP links. I
> add two different IPs
> to this interface, corresponding to each providers network. Then the
> masquerading is done
> with a rule like this:
>
> # iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE
> instead of:
>
> # iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth4 -j SNAT --to-source 67.17.28.12
> # iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth1 -j SNAT --to-source
> 205.254.211.179
>
How about using iproute2 (instead of MASQ / SNAT rule):
=> ip route add 192.168.10.0/24 dev eth0 src 192.168.10.1
=> ip route add 192.168.100.0/24 dev eth0 src 192.168.100.1
> For the traffic that is generated in the LAN behind the box, it works,
> but for the
> traffic that is generated in the localhost (routing box), it does not
> work.
> Indeed, it cannot possibly work for the localhost with a setup like
> this (with only
> one external interface). As it can be seen in this document:
> http://www.faqs.org/docs/iptables/traversingoftables.html
> (Table 3-2. Source local host)
> routing decision happens before the packet enters the chains of the
> iptables
> (the chain PREROUTING is not tranversed in this case).
>
> This is not a big problem (it is not so important that the traffic of
> the routing box
> be categorized as well), but trying to solve it, I came up with
> another solution,
> which seems simpler.The idea is to use something like this:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> IPT=/sbin/iptables
> PORT_LIST="22 53"
> GATEWAY1\x192.168.10.1
> GATEWAY2\x192.168.100.1
>
> for PORT in $PORT_LIST
> do
> $IPT -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 \
> -p tcp --dport $PORT -j SNAT --to-source $GATEWAY2
> done
>
> $IPT -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j SNAT --to-source $GATEWAY1
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I have not tested it yet but I don't see why it should not work.
>
> Also, I have seen somewhere that using two IPs on the same interface
> may be risky
> (may have security implications), but I don't see what they can be. If
> somebody has
> any idea of them and how to avoid them, please let me know. E.g. I
> have heard about
> "IP spoofing" but I don't understand what it is.
Using VLANs, you can separate the networks on the link level instead.
This is the same (in software) as using 2 different LAN ports (in hardware).
Regards,
Z.
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-10-08 10:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-10-06 14:46 [LARTC] Two outbound internet links, using one network interface Dashamir Hoxha
2006-10-08 10:14 ` Zoilo Gomez [this message]
2006-10-11 6:37 ` Dashamir Hoxha
2006-10-11 11:05 ` Radu Oprisan
2006-10-11 11:17 ` Radu Oprisan
2006-10-11 12:29 ` Dashamir Hoxha
2006-10-11 12:38 ` Dashamir Hoxha
2006-10-11 13:36 ` Alexandru Dragoi
2006-10-11 16:31 ` Pio Mendez
2006-10-12 13:02 ` Pio Mendez
2006-10-13 6:49 ` Dashamir Hoxha
2006-10-13 7:01 ` Dashamir Hoxha
2006-10-14 9:29 ` Dashamir Hoxha
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4528CF73.7010706@xs4all.nl \
--to=zoilo@xs4all.nl \
--cc=lartc@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.