* ping broadcast into forward chain?? (IN=eth0 OUT=eth0)!! @ 2011-09-19 15:29 Julio A. Romero 2011-09-19 15:38 ` Jan Engelhardt 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Julio A. Romero @ 2011-09-19 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: netfilter This is a real scenario: My external eth0=10.6.100.109, eth0:0=10.6.100.104 My internal eth2=10.6.13.254 My internal networks=10.6.11.0/24,10.6.13.0/24,10.6.40.0/24 Why these packests appear into the forward chain? My syslog: ... Sep 19 10:44:32 firewall kernel: [316561.880144] FW:FWD:netfilter_fwd:? IN=eth0 OUT=eth0 SRC=10.28.1 0.76 DST=10.6.15.246 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=54 ID=17064 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=512 SEQ=1 2558 Sep 19 10:44:32 firewall kernel: [316561.880273] FW:FWD:netfilter_fwd:? IN=eth0 OUT=eth0 SRC=10.28.1 0.76 DST=10.6.15.247 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=54 ID=17065 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=512 SEQ=1 2814 Sep 19 10:44:32 firewall kernel: [316561.881250] FW:FWD:netfilter_fwd:? IN=eth0 OUT=eth0 SRC=10.28.1 0.76 DST=10.6.15.248 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=54 ID=17066 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=512 SEQ=1 3070 Sep 19 10:44:32 firewall kernel: [316561.882040] FW:FWD:netfilter_fwd:? IN=eth0 OUT=eth0 SRC=10.28.1 0.76 DST=10.6.15.249 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=54 ID=17067 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=512 SEQ=1 3326 Sep 19 10:44:32 firewall kernel: [316561.882793] FW:FWD:netfilter_fwd:? IN=eth0 OUT=eth0 SRC=10.28.1 0.76 DST=10.6.15.250 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=54 ID=17068 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=512 SEQ=1 3582 Sep 19 10:44:32 firewall kernel: [316561.883546] FW:FWD:netfilter_fwd:? IN=eth0 OUT=eth0 SRC=10.28.1 0.76 DST=10.6.15.251 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=54 ID=17069 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=512 SEQ=1 3838 Sep 19 10:44:32 firewall kernel: [316561.884549] FW:FWD:netfilter_fwd:? IN=eth0 OUT=eth0 SRC=10.28.1 0.76 DST=10.6.15.252 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=54 ID=17070 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=512 SEQ=1 4094 Sep 19 10:44:32 firewall kernel: [316561.885317] FW:FWD:netfilter_fwd:? IN=eth0 OUT=eth0 SRC=10.28.1 0.76 DST=10.6.15.253 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=54 ID=17071 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=512 SEQ=1 4350 Sep 19 10:44:32 firewall kernel: [316561.886557] FW:FWD:netfilter_fwd:? IN=eth0 OUT=eth0 SRC=10.28.1 0.76 DST=10.6.15.254 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=54 ID=17072 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=512 SEQ=1 4606 Sep 19 10:44:32 firewall kernel: [316561.889452] FW:FWD:netfilter_fwd:? IN=eth0 OUT=eth0 SRC=10.28.1 0.76 DST=10.6.15.255 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=54 ID=17073 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=512 SEQ=1 4862 ... the two involved chains: ########################### # ipv4 - FILTER - FORWARD # ########################### # FORWARD RULES # # Forward all traffic to netfilter_fwd iptables -A FORWARD -j netfilter_fwd # Allow (established|related) connections in returned traffic of netfilter_fwd iptables -A FORWARD -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Send all other ICMP returned packets to icmpfilter iptables -A FORWARD -p icmp -g icmpfilter # Send all other UDP returned packets to udpport iptables -A FORWARD -p udp -g udpport # Send all other TCP returned packets to tcpport iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp -g tcpport # Send all other returned fragmented packets to average iptables -A FORWARD -f -j average # Log for debugger iptables -A FORWARD -j LOG --log-prefix "FW:FWD:? " ####### # END # ####### ########################### # ipv4 - FILTER - netfilter_fwd # ########################### # NETFILTER_FWD RULES # # Create netfilter_fwd iptables -N netfilter_fwd # LOG and DROP untrue connections iptables -A netfilter_fwd -s $GW_NETWORKS -j LOG --log-prefix "FW:FWD:BOX->* " iptables -A netfilter_fwd -s $GW_NETWORKS -j DROP iptables -A netfilter_fwd -d $GW_NETWORKS -j LOG --log-prefix "FW:FWD:*->BOX " iptables -A netfilter_fwd -d $GW_NETWORKS -j DROP iptables -A netfilter_fwd -i $INT_IFACEs -o $EXT_IFACEs -d $INT_NETWORKS -j LOG \ --log-prefix "FW:FWD:I->E:dst:INT_NET " iptables -A netfilter_fwd -i $INT_IFACEs -o $EXT_IFACEs -d $INT_NETWORKS -j DROP iptables -A netfilter_fwd -i $EXT_IFACEs -o $INT_IFACEs -s $INT_NETWORKS -j LOG \ --log-prefix "FW:FWD:E->I:src:INT_NET " iptables -A netfilter_fwd -i $EXT_IFACEs -o $INT_IFACEs -s $INT_NETWORKS -j DROP # Send outgoing traffic to dstnetfilter for validation of the destination iptables -A netfilter_fwd -i $INT_IFACEs -o $EXT_IFACEs -s $INT_NETWORKS -g dstnetfilter # Send incoming traffic to srcnetfilter for validation of the source iptables -A netfilter_fwd -i $EXT_IFACEs -o $INT_IFACEs -d $INT_NETWORKS -g srcnetfilter # LOG and DROP all other traffic iptables -A netfilter_fwd -j LOG --log-prefix "FW:FWD:netfilter_fwd:? " iptables -A netfilter_fwd -j DROP ####### # END # ####### thanks, julio ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ping broadcast into forward chain?? (IN=eth0 OUT=eth0)!! 2011-09-19 15:29 ping broadcast into forward chain?? (IN=eth0 OUT=eth0)!! Julio A. Romero @ 2011-09-19 15:38 ` Jan Engelhardt [not found] ` <9C0FCAA46B9040869B79B468CCA7391C@poweredge1800> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2011-09-19 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Julio A. Romero; +Cc: netfilter On Monday 2011-09-19 17:29, Julio A. Romero wrote: > This is a real scenario: > > My external eth0=10.6.100.109, eth0:0=10.6.100.104 > My internal eth2=10.6.13.254 > My internal networks=10.6.11.0/24,10.6.13.0/24,10.6.40.0/24 > > Why these packests [below] appear into the forward chain? Where else should they appear? >Sep 19 10:44:32 firewall kernel: [316561.880144] FW:FWD:netfilter_fwd:? >IN=eth0 OUT=eth0 SRC=10.28.10.76 DST=10.6.15.246 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 >PREC=0x00 TTL=54 ID=17064 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=512 SEQ=12558 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <9C0FCAA46B9040869B79B468CCA7391C@poweredge1800>]
* Re: ping broadcast into forward chain?? (IN=eth0 OUT=eth0)!! [not found] ` <9C0FCAA46B9040869B79B468CCA7391C@poweredge1800> @ 2011-09-19 15:55 ` Jan Engelhardt 2011-09-19 16:10 ` Julio A. Romero 2011-09-21 21:23 ` Help on outgoing packet (without NAT) Jorge Bastos 0 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2011-09-19 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Julio A. Romero; +Cc: netfilter Bah, don't strip the CC, and don't top-post. On Monday 2011-09-19 17:43, Julio A. Romero wrote: > In the INPUT chain!!?? No, why? It was not a broadcast packet. Your syslog itself says: DST=10.6.15.246. > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Engelhardt" <jengelh@medozas.de> > To: "Julio A. Romero" <julioarr@fisica.uh.cu> > Cc: <netfilter@vger.kernel.org> > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:38 AM > Subject: Re: ping broadcast into forward chain?? (IN=eth0 OUT=eth0)!! > > >> On Monday 2011-09-19 17:29, Julio A. Romero wrote: >> >>> This is a real scenario: >>> >>> My external eth0=10.6.100.109, eth0:0=10.6.100.104 >>> My internal eth2=10.6.13.254 >>> My internal networks=10.6.11.0/24,10.6.13.0/24,10.6.40.0/24 >>> >>> Why these packests [below] appear into the forward chain? >> >> Where else should they appear? >> >>> Sep 19 10:44:32 firewall kernel: [316561.880144] FW:FWD:netfilter_fwd:? >>> IN=eth0 OUT=eth0 SRC=10.28.10.76 DST=10.6.15.246 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 >>> PREC=0x00 TTL=54 ID=17064 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=512 SEQ=12558 >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.914 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3906 - Release Date: 09/19/11 > 02:34:00 > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ping broadcast into forward chain?? (IN=eth0 OUT=eth0)!! 2011-09-19 15:55 ` Jan Engelhardt @ 2011-09-19 16:10 ` Julio A. Romero 2011-09-19 16:15 ` Jan Engelhardt 2011-09-21 21:23 ` Help on outgoing packet (without NAT) Jorge Bastos 1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Julio A. Romero @ 2011-09-19 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Engelhardt; +Cc: netfilter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Engelhardt" <jengelh@medozas.de> To: "Julio A. Romero" <julioarr@fisica.uh.cu> Cc: <netfilter@vger.kernel.org> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:55 AM Subject: Re: ping broadcast into forward chain?? (IN=eth0 OUT=eth0)!! > Bah, don't strip the CC, and don't top-post. > > On Monday 2011-09-19 17:43, Julio A. Romero wrote: > >> In the INPUT chain!!?? > > No, why? It was not a broadcast packet. Your syslog itself says: > DST=10.6.15.246. but 10.6.15.246 is outside of my internal networks ?? and the interfaces IN/OUT is the same external iface of the BOX; the packets don't go through the box or yes?! what happen if I remove the rule to log? > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Engelhardt" <jengelh@medozas.de> >> To: "Julio A. Romero" <julioarr@fisica.uh.cu> >> Cc: <netfilter@vger.kernel.org> >> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:38 AM >> Subject: Re: ping broadcast into forward chain?? (IN=eth0 OUT=eth0)!! >> >> >>> On Monday 2011-09-19 17:29, Julio A. Romero wrote: >>> >>>> This is a real scenario: >>>> >>>> My external eth0=10.6.100.109, eth0:0=10.6.100.104 >>>> My internal eth2=10.6.13.254 >>>> My internal networks=10.6.11.0/24,10.6.13.0/24,10.6.40.0/24 >>>> >>>> Why these packests [below] appear into the forward chain? >>> >>> Where else should they appear? >>> >>>> Sep 19 10:44:32 firewall kernel: [316561.880144] FW:FWD:netfilter_fwd:? >>>> IN=eth0 OUT=eth0 SRC=10.28.10.76 DST=10.6.15.246 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 >>>> PREC=0x00 TTL=54 ID=17064 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=512 SEQ=12558 >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 9.0.914 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3906 - Release Date: 09/19/11 >> 02:34:00 >> >> > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.914 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3906 - Release Date: 09/19/11 02:34:00 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ping broadcast into forward chain?? (IN=eth0 OUT=eth0)!! 2011-09-19 16:10 ` Julio A. Romero @ 2011-09-19 16:15 ` Jan Engelhardt 2011-09-19 16:38 ` Julio A. Romero 2011-09-20 0:22 ` Julio A. Romero 0 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2011-09-19 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Julio A. Romero; +Cc: netfilter On Monday 2011-09-19 18:10, Julio A. Romero wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Engelhardt" <jengelh@medozas.de> > To: "Julio A. Romero" <julioarr@fisica.uh.cu> > Cc: <netfilter@vger.kernel.org> > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:55 AM > Subject: Re: ping broadcast into forward chain?? (IN=eth0 OUT=eth0)!! > > >> Bah, don't strip the CC, and don't top-post. >> >> On Monday 2011-09-19 17:43, Julio A. Romero wrote: >> >>> In the INPUT chain!!?? >> >> No, why? It was not a broadcast packet. Your syslog itself says: >> DST=10.6.15.246. > > but 10.6.15.246 is outside of my internal networks ?? Yes, which is why it goes to OUT=eth0. > the packets don't go through the box or yes?! Of course they do go through your box, otherwise it would not be able to log them. > what happen if I remove the rule to log? There would be no entry in syslog, obviously. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ping broadcast into forward chain?? (IN=eth0 OUT=eth0)!! 2011-09-19 16:15 ` Jan Engelhardt @ 2011-09-19 16:38 ` Julio A. Romero 2011-09-19 17:07 ` Jan Engelhardt 2011-09-20 0:22 ` Julio A. Romero 1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Julio A. Romero @ 2011-09-19 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Engelhardt; +Cc: netfilter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Engelhardt" <jengelh@medozas.de> To: "Julio A. Romero" <julioarr@fisica.uh.cu> Cc: <netfilter@vger.kernel.org> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 12:15 PM Subject: Re: ping broadcast into forward chain?? (IN=eth0 OUT=eth0)!! > On Monday 2011-09-19 18:10, Julio A. Romero wrote: > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Engelhardt" <jengelh@medozas.de> >> To: "Julio A. Romero" <julioarr@fisica.uh.cu> >> Cc: <netfilter@vger.kernel.org> >> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:55 AM >> Subject: Re: ping broadcast into forward chain?? (IN=eth0 OUT=eth0)!! >> >> >>> Bah, don't strip the CC, and don't top-post. >>> >>> On Monday 2011-09-19 17:43, Julio A. Romero wrote: >>> >>>> In the INPUT chain!!?? >>> >>> No, why? It was not a broadcast packet. Your syslog itself says: >>> DST=10.6.15.246. >> >> but 10.6.15.246 is outside of my internal networks ?? > > Yes, which is why it goes to OUT=eth0. ok, the packets are forwarding in eth0, so why? the sources of the packets is outside of my networks and also the destination: SRC=10.28.10.76 DST=10.6.15.246 eth0=10.6.100.109 and eth0:0=10.6.100.104 and eth2=10.6.13.254 root@firewall:~# route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 10.6.13.0 10.6.13.253 255.255.255.252 UG 0 0 0 eth2 10.6.13.252 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.252 U 0 0 0 eth2 10.6.100.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 10.6.12.0 10.6.100.113 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 10.6.40.0 10.6.13.253 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth2 10.6.11.0 10.6.13.253 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth2 0.0.0.0 10.6.100.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 > >> the packets don't go through the box or yes?! > > Of course they do go through your box, otherwise it would not be able to > log them. > >> what happen if I remove the rule to log? > > There would be no entry in syslog, obviously. > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.914 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3906 - Release Date: 09/19/11 02:34:00 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ping broadcast into forward chain?? (IN=eth0 OUT=eth0)!! 2011-09-19 16:38 ` Julio A. Romero @ 2011-09-19 17:07 ` Jan Engelhardt 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2011-09-19 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Julio A. Romero; +Cc: netfilter On Monday 2011-09-19 18:38, Julio A. Romero wrote: >>>>> In the INPUT chain!!?? >>>> >>>> No, why? It was not a broadcast packet. Your syslog itself says: >>>> DST=10.6.15.246. >>> >>> but 10.6.15.246 is outside of my internal networks ?? >> >> Yes, which is why it goes to OUT=eth0. > > ok, the packets are forwarding in eth0, so why? Because the packet was not destined for this host. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ping broadcast into forward chain?? (IN=eth0 OUT=eth0)!! 2011-09-19 16:15 ` Jan Engelhardt 2011-09-19 16:38 ` Julio A. Romero @ 2011-09-20 0:22 ` Julio A. Romero 1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Julio A. Romero @ 2011-09-20 0:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Engelhardt; +Cc: netfilter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Engelhardt" <jengelh@medozas.de> To: "Julio A. Romero" <julioarr@fisica.uh.cu> Cc: <netfilter@vger.kernel.org> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 12:15 PM Subject: Re: ping broadcast into forward chain?? (IN=eth0 OUT=eth0)!! > On Monday 2011-09-19 18:10, Julio A. Romero wrote: > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Engelhardt" <jengelh@medozas.de> >> To: "Julio A. Romero" <julioarr@fisica.uh.cu> >> Cc: <netfilter@vger.kernel.org> >> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:55 AM >> Subject: Re: ping broadcast into forward chain?? (IN=eth0 OUT=eth0)!! >> >> >>> Bah, don't strip the CC, and don't top-post. >>> >>> On Monday 2011-09-19 17:43, Julio A. Romero wrote: >>> >>>> In the INPUT chain!!?? >>> >>> No, why? It was not a broadcast packet. Your syslog itself says: >>> DST=10.6.15.246. >> >> but 10.6.15.246 is outside of my internal networks ?? > > Yes, which is why it goes to OUT=eth0. > >> the packets don't go through the box or yes?! > > Of course they do go through your box, otherwise it would not be able to > log them. > >> what happen if I remove the rule to log? > > There would be no entry in syslog, obviously. now I know what happen! anyone, I don't know who, he/she set a unassigned route pointing to my box. The packets arrived to my box through the external interface and then the destination is wrong, so, the packets go to the default gateway configured in my box, again through the external interface because the default gateway is outside of my network. When I set a rule in the FORWARD chain logging and dropping the packet whose source or destination don't match with my networks, I never thought in the above-mentioned situation. thanks once again! julio > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.914 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3906 - Release Date: 09/19/11 02:34:00 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Help on outgoing packet (without NAT) 2011-09-19 15:55 ` Jan Engelhardt 2011-09-19 16:10 ` Julio A. Romero @ 2011-09-21 21:23 ` Jorge Bastos 2011-09-21 21:47 ` Andrew Beverley 2011-09-21 22:42 ` Jan Engelhardt 1 sibling, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Jorge Bastos @ 2011-09-21 21:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: netfilter Howdy, I'd like some help on how can I redirect the outgoing packets without using NAT. I have a machine, that when requests to IP 5.5.5.5 and port 80 are made, the request be redirected to 192.168.1.221:80 I'm trying this but no luck, maybe I'm close to it: iptables -I FORWARD -d 5.5.5.5 -p tcp --dport 80 --to 192.168.1.221:80 What can I missing or what do I need to add? Thanks in advanced, Jorge Bastos, ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Help on outgoing packet (without NAT) 2011-09-21 21:23 ` Help on outgoing packet (without NAT) Jorge Bastos @ 2011-09-21 21:47 ` Andrew Beverley 2011-09-22 15:58 ` Jorge Bastos 2011-09-21 22:42 ` Jan Engelhardt 1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Andrew Beverley @ 2011-09-21 21:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jorge Bastos; +Cc: netfilter On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 22:23 +0100, Jorge Bastos wrote: > Howdy, > > I'd like some help on how can I redirect the outgoing packets without > using NAT. > > I have a machine, that when requests to IP 5.5.5.5 and port 80 are > made, the request be redirected to 192.168.1.221:80 > I'm trying this but no luck, maybe I'm close to it: > > iptables -I FORWARD -d 5.5.5.5 -p tcp --dport 80 --to 192.168.1.221:80 > > What can I missing or what do I need to add? Assuming that you are referring to packets generated on the local machine (which is what is implied), then you need to use OUTPUT instead of FORWARD. FORWARD is only for packets that arrive from another machine. OUTPUT is for locally generated packets. Andy ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Help on outgoing packet (without NAT) 2011-09-21 21:47 ` Andrew Beverley @ 2011-09-22 15:58 ` Jorge Bastos 2011-09-22 16:29 ` Jan Engelhardt 2011-09-22 16:39 ` Leonardo Rodrigues 0 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Jorge Bastos @ 2011-09-22 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Beverley; +Cc: netfilter Hi Andy, >> Howdy, I'd like some help on how can I redirect the outgoing packets >> without using NAT. I have a machine, that when requests to IP >> 5.5.5.5 >> and port 80 are made, the request be redirected to 192.168.1.221:80 >> I'm >> trying this but no luck, maybe I'm close to it: iptables -I FORWARD >> -d >> 5.5.5.5 -p tcp --dport 80 --to 192.168.1.221:80 What can I missing >> or >> what do I need to add? > > Assuming that you are referring to packets generated on the local > machine (which is what is implied), then you need to use OUTPUT > instead > of FORWARD. > > FORWARD is only for packets that arrive from another machine. OUTPUT > is > for locally generated packets. Correct, local generated packets. Tried: iptables -I OUTPUT -d 5.5.5.5 -p tcp --dport 80 --redirect-to 192.168.1.221:80 I'm missing something but not sure what, but it's on the redirect part. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Help on outgoing packet (without NAT) 2011-09-22 15:58 ` Jorge Bastos @ 2011-09-22 16:29 ` Jan Engelhardt 2011-09-22 16:31 ` Jorge Bastos 2011-09-22 16:39 ` Leonardo Rodrigues 1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2011-09-22 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jorge Bastos; +Cc: Andrew Beverley, netfilter On Thursday 2011-09-22 17:58, Jorge Bastos wrote: > Hi Andy, > >>> Howdy, I'd like some help on how can I redirect the outgoing packets >>> without using NAT. I have a machine, that when requests to IP 5.5.5.5 >>> and port 80 are made, the request be redirected to 192.168.1.221:80 I'm >>> trying this but no luck, maybe I'm close to it: iptables -I FORWARD -d >>> 5.5.5.5 -p tcp --dport 80 --to 192.168.1.221:80 What can I missing or >>> what do I need to add? >> >> Assuming that you are referring to packets generated on the local >> machine (which is what is implied), then you need to use OUTPUT instead >> of FORWARD. >> >> FORWARD is only for packets that arrive from another machine. OUTPUT is >> for locally generated packets. > > Correct, local generated packets. > Tried: > > iptables -I OUTPUT -d 5.5.5.5 -p tcp --dport 80 --redirect-to 192.168.1.221:80 What makes you think that there is an error in redirect? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Help on outgoing packet (without NAT) 2011-09-22 16:29 ` Jan Engelhardt @ 2011-09-22 16:31 ` Jorge Bastos 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Jorge Bastos @ 2011-09-22 16:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Engelhardt; +Cc: Andrew Beverley, netfilter >> Correct, local generated packets. Tried: iptables -I OUTPUT -d 5.5.5.5 -p tcp --dport 80 --redirect-to 192.168.1.221:80 > What makes you think that there is an error in redirect? iptables -I OUTPUT -d 5.5.5.5 -p tcp --dport 80 --redirect-to 192.168.1.221:80 iptables v1.4.9.1: unknown option `--redirect-to' Try `iptables -h' or 'iptables --help' for more information. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Help on outgoing packet (without NAT) 2011-09-22 15:58 ` Jorge Bastos 2011-09-22 16:29 ` Jan Engelhardt @ 2011-09-22 16:39 ` Leonardo Rodrigues 2011-09-22 16:44 ` Jorge Bastos 1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Leonardo Rodrigues @ 2011-09-22 16:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ML netfilter Em 22/09/11 12:58, Jorge Bastos escreveu: > > Correct, local generated packets. > Tried: > > iptables -I OUTPUT -d 5.5.5.5 -p tcp --dport 80 --redirect-to > 192.168.1.221:80 > > I'm missing something but not sure what, but it's on the redirect part. Your rule is absolutely incomplete and nonsense packet redirections should be done on the NAT table. If no table is specified on the command, you'll work on the filter table, which is not the one you want here. So '-t nat' is needed. the '--redirect-to' is not an argument for any of the known targets i know .... but as it seems you want to redirect some packet to another machine, than you'll probably want the DNAT target. Anyway, you have not specified any target, so iptables simply doesnt know what to do. calling the correct target with correct argument, your rule should look something like: iptables -t nat -I OUTPUT -d 5.5.5.5 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.1.221 no need to specify the :80 port to the destination target. If you want to redirect to the same port, you dont need to specify that. You would need to specify if you were changing ports. -- Atenciosamente / Sincerily, Leonardo Rodrigues Solutti Tecnologia http://www.solutti.com.br Minha armadilha de SPAM, NÃO mandem email gertrudes@solutti.com.br My SPAMTRAP, do not email it ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Help on outgoing packet (without NAT) 2011-09-22 16:39 ` Leonardo Rodrigues @ 2011-09-22 16:44 ` Jorge Bastos 2011-09-22 16:46 ` Jan Engelhardt 2011-09-22 17:02 ` Leonardo Rodrigues 0 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Jorge Bastos @ 2011-09-22 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Leonardo Rodrigues; +Cc: ML netfilter Hi, > Your rule is absolutely incomplete and nonsense > > packet redirections should be done on the NAT table. If no table is > specified on the command, you'll work on the filter table, which is > not > the one you want here. So '-t nat' is needed. > > the '--redirect-to' is not an argument for any of the known targets > i know .... but as it seems you want to redirect some packet to > another > machine, than you'll probably want the DNAT target. Anyway, you have > not > specified any target, so iptables simply doesnt know what to do. > > calling the correct target with correct argument, your rule should > look something like: > > iptables -t nat -I OUTPUT -d 5.5.5.5 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT > --to-destination 192.168.1.221 > > no need to specify the :80 port to the destination target. If you > want to redirect to the same port, you dont need to specify that. You > would need to specify if you were changing ports. Well I was convinced that, since I'm not using NAT on this machine, this couldn't be done on the NAT table. Thanks, after all, it works. Jorge, ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Help on outgoing packet (without NAT) 2011-09-22 16:44 ` Jorge Bastos @ 2011-09-22 16:46 ` Jan Engelhardt 2011-09-22 17:02 ` Leonardo Rodrigues 1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2011-09-22 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jorge Bastos; +Cc: Leonardo Rodrigues, ML netfilter On Thursday 2011-09-22 18:44, Jorge Bastos wrote: > Hi, > >> packet redirections should be done on the NAT table. >> the '--redirect-to' is not an argument for any of the known targets > > Well I was convinced that, since I'm not using NAT on this machine, this > couldn't be done on the NAT table. > Thanks, after all, it works. It can be done without NAT, but if you want to do it without NAT, don't use {a NAT target like REDIRECT}, use TPROXY. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Help on outgoing packet (without NAT) 2011-09-22 16:44 ` Jorge Bastos 2011-09-22 16:46 ` Jan Engelhardt @ 2011-09-22 17:02 ` Leonardo Rodrigues 1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Leonardo Rodrigues @ 2011-09-22 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ML netfilter Em 22/09/11 13:44, Jorge Bastos escreveu: > > Well I was convinced that, since I'm not using NAT on this machine, > this couldn't be done on the NAT table. > Thanks, after all, it works. Yes now you're using NAT .... we usually say NAT to some kind of SOURCE NAT, for example done on cable/DSL modens. but any kind of address translation is a NAT, including your case in which you want to change the destination of some packet, usually known as port forwarding. Yes it's a NAT, a Destination NAT. if i'm not mistaken, just pay attention that as you're using NAT and you'll have packets flowing 'through' your machine, you must have the /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward set to 1 you also need appropriate FORWARD rules to allow that packets to flow through your machine. If you're running with the default FORWARD ACCEPT default rule and no rules there, than you'll have no problem. But keep in mind that packets are going through filter table, FORWARD chain and ip_forward must be enabled for that to work. -- Atenciosamente / Sincerily, Leonardo Rodrigues Solutti Tecnologia http://www.solutti.com.br Minha armadilha de SPAM, NÃO mandem email gertrudes@solutti.com.br My SPAMTRAP, do not email it ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Help on outgoing packet (without NAT) 2011-09-21 21:23 ` Help on outgoing packet (without NAT) Jorge Bastos 2011-09-21 21:47 ` Andrew Beverley @ 2011-09-21 22:42 ` Jan Engelhardt 1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2011-09-21 22:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jorge Bastos; +Cc: netfilter On Wednesday 2011-09-21 23:23, Jorge Bastos wrote: > > I have a machine, that when requests to IP 5.5.5.5 and port 80 are made, the > request be redirected to 192.168.1.221:80 > I'm trying this but no luck, maybe I'm close to it: > > iptables -I FORWARD -d 5.5.5.5 -p tcp --dport 80 --to 192.168.1.221:80 > > What can I missing or what do I need to add? The error message you get, at least. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-09-22 17:02 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-09-19 15:29 ping broadcast into forward chain?? (IN=eth0 OUT=eth0)!! Julio A. Romero
2011-09-19 15:38 ` Jan Engelhardt
[not found] ` <9C0FCAA46B9040869B79B468CCA7391C@poweredge1800>
2011-09-19 15:55 ` Jan Engelhardt
2011-09-19 16:10 ` Julio A. Romero
2011-09-19 16:15 ` Jan Engelhardt
2011-09-19 16:38 ` Julio A. Romero
2011-09-19 17:07 ` Jan Engelhardt
2011-09-20 0:22 ` Julio A. Romero
2011-09-21 21:23 ` Help on outgoing packet (without NAT) Jorge Bastos
2011-09-21 21:47 ` Andrew Beverley
2011-09-22 15:58 ` Jorge Bastos
2011-09-22 16:29 ` Jan Engelhardt
2011-09-22 16:31 ` Jorge Bastos
2011-09-22 16:39 ` Leonardo Rodrigues
2011-09-22 16:44 ` Jorge Bastos
2011-09-22 16:46 ` Jan Engelhardt
2011-09-22 17:02 ` Leonardo Rodrigues
2011-09-21 22:42 ` Jan Engelhardt
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.