From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de>
Cc: Netfilter Developer Mailing List
<netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
Netfilter Core Team <coreteam@netfilter.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] netfilter: nf_nat: support user-specified SNAT rules in LOCAL_IN
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:44:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C19D257.5090101@trash.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.01.1006170924040.12057@obet.zrqbmnf.qr>
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Wednesday 2010-06-16 17:09, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>>
>> This works well, but is needlessly complicated for cases where only
>> a single SNAT/DNAT mapping needs to be applied to these packets. In that
>> case, all that needs to be done is to assign each network to a seperate
>> zone and perform NAT as usual. However this doesn't work for packets
>> destined for the machine performing NAT itself since its corrently not
>> possible to configure SNAT mappings for the LOCAL_IN chain.
>>
>> Example usage with two identical networks (192.168.0.0/24) on eth0/eth1:
>>
>> # assign packets from each interface to a seperate zone and mark them for NAT
>>
>> iptables -t raw -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -j CT --zone 1
>> iptables -t raw -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -j MARK --set-mark 1
>> iptables -t raw -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -j CT --zone 2
>> iptabels -t raw -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -j MARK --set-mark 2
>>
>> # SNAT packets to private networks: eth0 -> 10.0.0.0/24, eth1 -> 10.0.1.0/24
>>
>> iptables -t nat -A INPUT -m mark --mark 1 -j NETMAP --to 10.0.0.0/24
>> iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -m mark --mark 1 -j NETMAP --to 10.0.0.0/24
>> iptables -t nat -A INPUT -m mark --mark 2 -j NETMAP --to 10.0.1.0/24
>> iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -m mark --mark 2 -j NETMAP --to 10.0.1.0/24
>>
>
> I am not sure I follow whatever this is supposed to do.
>
> Packet from eth0: src=10.0.0.15 dst=10.0.1.22
> INPUT#NETMAP will dst transform that to dst=10.0.0.22
nat/INPUT performs source NAT, not destination NAT.
> POSTROUTING#NETMAP will src transform that to src=10.0.0.15
>
> Is is this step that makes no sense to me.
Does it make sense now?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-17 7:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-16 15:09 [RFC PATCH] netfilter: nf_nat: support user-specified SNAT rules in LOCAL_IN Patrick McHardy
2010-06-17 7:28 ` Jan Engelhardt
2010-06-17 7:44 ` Patrick McHardy [this message]
2010-06-17 7:52 ` Jan Engelhardt
2010-06-17 7:55 ` Patrick McHardy
2010-06-17 8:58 ` Jan Engelhardt
2010-06-17 15:22 ` Patrick McHardy
2010-06-20 8:31 ` Jan Engelhardt
2010-06-22 7:20 ` Patrick McHardy
2010-06-28 14:40 ` Jan Engelhardt
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=4C19D257.5090101@trash.net \
--to=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=coreteam@netfilter.org \
--cc=jengelh@medozas.de \
--cc=netfilter-devel@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.