All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: <tom@then.fr>
To: netfilter@vger.kernel.org
Subject: NAT, DROP and walled-gardens (~= captive portal)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:13:39 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bad08547704464d914a571f252e59c40@localhost> (raw)

Hey guys,

*Problem*
I've just hit the deprecation of DROP in the NAT tables.
iptables v1.4.7:
The "nat" table is not intended for filtering, the use of DROP is 
therefore inhibited.

*Context*
- I have a Centos 6.3 acting as router and running iptables.
- It routes traffic in and out.
- It also has different 'walled-gardens' which restrict a source 
IP(s).
- An IP in a 'walled-garden' has for intance the following 
restrictions:
  * Access to a limited set of servers (in house or on the Net).
  * Access to DNS servers
  * Port 80 rewritten to a default server
  * Drop all the rest of the traffic
- I have different kind of gardens with different set of rules to 
restrict IPs (users). A garden must have a default policy set to drop.
- The IP (user) are added and removed from a garden by a software 
using iptables.

With our old Centos4 I was using the following which worked fine:
- Example of a walled-garden definition:
/sbin/iptables -t nat -N garden
/sbin/iptables -t nat -A garden -p udp -m udp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 
1.1.1.1
/sbin/iptables -t nat -A garden -p tcp -m tcp -d 3.3.3.3 -j ACCEPT
/sbin/iptables -t nat -A garden -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to 
80.80.80.80
/sbin/iptables -t nat -A garden -j DROP

- Definition of the chain where the software will put users in:
/sbin/iptables -t nat -N garden_users
/sbin/iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j garden_users

- Add or remove a user in a garden via software with :
/sbin/iptables -t nat -A garden_users -s IP.TO.GAR.DEN -j garden
/sbin/iptables -t nat -D garden_users -s IP.TO.GAR.DEN -j garden

*Question*
Now, as you know we cannot DROP anymore in a NAT table. Therefore my 
gardens are useless because I cannot drop at the end anymore. For the 
moment I really don't see how I can easily have the same behaviour than 
before. I can see a possible solution with more chains that would 
involve the software to iptables -A to different chains which I'd like 
to avoid :)

I'd like to have your insights first to see if there is something 
obvious I cannot see or not fully understanding.

Any ideas are welcome.

Thomas


             reply	other threads:[~2013-01-15  4:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-01-15  4:13 tom [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-01-15  6:31 NAT, DROP and walled-gardens (~= captive portal) Neal Murphy
2013-01-15 11:18 ` Tom

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=bad08547704464d914a571f252e59c40@localhost \
    --to=tom@then.fr \
    --cc=netfilter@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.