* Re: [LARTC] Proxy Arp with same left/right IP address.
2002-02-13 15:35 [LARTC] Proxy Arp with same left/right IP address Adrian Chung
@ 2002-02-13 15:52 ` Ard van Breemen
2002-02-13 16:00 ` Adrian Chung
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ard van Breemen @ 2002-02-13 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1938 bytes --]
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 10:35:15AM -0500, Adrian Chung wrote:
> Hey everyone! I came across this link today:
>
> http://www.sjdjweis.com/linux/proxyarp/
>
> Which I thought was very interesting. But I don't quite understand
> how, or what effect assigning the same IP address to both the left and
> right side interfaces of the pseudo-bridge has.
>
> In the article, the author describes a mechanism for being able to
> shape/filter traffic to an entire ISP assigned subnet.
>
> Basically, use proxy arp, assign the same ISP IP to both interfaces on
> the router, and use iproute2 to create routes to the router on one
> interface, and the rest of the network on the other.
It does not matter which ip addresses you asign to which interfaces.
You can also assing the official ip to lo.
> It's almost identical to the Proxy-Arp/Pseudo Bridge part of the LARTC
> HOWTO.
>
> Except that I'm confused as to how the kernel deals with the fact that
> both interfaces have the same IP address.
The kernel sees one IP address, and two nics, with each having some part
of a network directly attached to it.
> I guess logically it doesn't matter to the kernel, because the routes
> clearly delineate which interface to send packets to, proxy-arp
> connects the two LANs, and both interfaces have different MAC
> addresses.
Yep.
> It just seems wrong. :)
Nope.
If you think about it: it is CLEAN!
I've attached an e-mail which should give some more examples, and a copy
of the mail I send to the maintainer of that site.
(Eh, the update to the last mail: I tested it, and it works.)
Some advice, eh to everybody:
Really forget about route and ifconfig, try to switch to the iproute
utility...
--
<ard@telegraafnet.nl> Telegraaf Elektronische Media http://wwwijzer.nl
http://leerquoten.monster.org/ http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
Let your government know you value your freedom. Sign the petition:
http://petition.eurolinux.org/
[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 5019 bytes --]
From: Ard van Breemen <ard@telegraafnet.nl>
To: vlan@Scry.WANfear.com
Subject: Re: [VLAN] same ip in all vlan interfaces possible?
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 20:28:32 +0100
Message-ID: <20020110192832.GI25507@telegraafnet.nl>
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 01:05:12PM -0200, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
> I'm about to try ethernet tags for the first time. I need to use the
> same ip in all vlan interfaces. Is this possible?
>
> I can't put each vlan in a different IP subnet because there will be
> tens of them.
I am not sure of what you are trying to do, but this is possible:
Give all the networks the idea of a virtual 192.168.0.0/16 f.i. .
You can divide your network in c classes by f.i.:
vconfig add eth0 2
ip addr add 127.0.0.1/8 dev vlan2
ip route add 192.168.2.0/24 dev vlan2
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/vlan2/proxy_arp
vconfig add eth0 3
ip addr add 127.0.0.1/8 dev vlan3
ip route add 192.168.3.0/24 dev vlan3
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/vlan2/proxy_arp
vconfig add eth0 4
ip addr add 127.0.0.1/8 dev vlan4
ip route add 192.168.4.0/24 dev vlan4
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/vlan2/proxy_arp
vconfig add eth0 5
ip addr add 127.0.0.1/8 dev vlan5
ip route add 192.168.5.0/24 dev vlan5
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/vlan2/proxy_arp
ip addr add 192.168.0.1/32 dev lo
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
If 192.168.5.2 tries to ping 192.168.3.9, it will arp for it, since it
thinks it is in the same subnet (/16). Your box knows how to route it,
and therefore will reply to the arp. 192.168.5.2 will then send the
packet to your box, which will happily forward it.
The default gw in this example is 192.168.0.1, put on lo.
You need to have at least 1 ip address on a device to get the ip stack
bound to that device. If you don't have an ip address on a device (no
matter what ip address), you will not be able to use the kernel-ip stack
on that device. Not binding the kernel ip-stack to the device is a good
idea if you want to do some network sniffing for intrusion detection
etc...
(Thanks to Pauline Middelink for pointing me at the proxy_arp idea)
DISCLAIMER: I already tested the concept using 127.0.0.1 addresses and
proxy-arp in a sort of production environment. I did not test the example
above :)
--
<ard@telegraafnet.nl> Telegraaf Elektronische Media http://wwwijzer.nl
http://leerquoten.monster.org/ http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
Let your government know you value your freedom. Sign the petition:
http://petition.eurolinux.org/
_______________________________________________
VLAN mailing list - VLAN@Scry.WANfear.com
http://www.WANfear.com/mailman/listinfo/vlan
VLAN Page: http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear/vlan.html
[-- Attachment #3: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2063 bytes --]
To: djweis@sjdjweis.com
Subject: Proxy ARP with Linux (minor correction)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 20:19:31 +0100
Message-ID: <20011211201931.R25836@telegraafnet.nl>
In
http://www.sjdjweis.com/linux/proxyarp/index.html
You say:
You will need a 2.4 series kernel, the iproute2 utility, and a recent iptables userspace program.
Allright, then these are my comments :) :
Everything except for the iptables already work on a 2.2 kernel, there
is nothing new there. Yes, I already used proxy-arp on a 2.2 kernel.
Hmmm, ok, you are right that in this case you definitely need the
connection tracking to prevent from unwanted garbage from entering
your network, which is not the case in the classical (masquerading)
firewalling approach. But that is the "only" reason to have 2.4...
Another thing I am now busy to find out (I am not sure if this also
works on 2.2, but I have no reason to believe it does not work):
ip link set up dev eth0
ip addr add 127.0.0.1/32 dev eth0
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth0/proxy_arp
ip link set up dev eth1
ip addr add 127.0.0.1/32 dev eth1
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth1/proxy_arp
ip route add x.x.x.96/28 dev eth0
ip route add x.x.x.97/32 dev eth1
The theory behind it: the IP protocol driver needs to be bound to the
device. This is done by giving any (bogus) ip address to an interface.
Only after the IP protocol driver is bound to the interface you can use
it for IP.
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf will only show interfaces bound to the IP
protocol... :)
Of course: you cannot reach the firewall, and the firewall can't reach
you. You need a non-bogus ip address for that... (Hmmmm: ssh 127.0.0.1
... Hah! I hacked the firewall.... shutdown -h now ... Uh? ;) )
--
<ard@telegraafnet.nl> Telegraaf Elektronische Media http://wwwijzer.nl
http://leerquoten.monster.org/ http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
Let your government know you value your freedom. Sign the petition:
http://petition.eurolinux.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [LARTC] Proxy Arp with same left/right IP address.
2002-02-13 15:35 [LARTC] Proxy Arp with same left/right IP address Adrian Chung
2002-02-13 15:52 ` Ard van Breemen
@ 2002-02-13 16:00 ` Adrian Chung
2002-02-13 16:07 ` Ard van Breemen
2002-02-13 16:13 ` Adrian Chung
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Chung @ 2002-02-13 16:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 04:52:09PM +0100, Ard van Breemen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 10:35:15AM -0500, Adrian Chung wrote:
[...]
> > Except that I'm confused as to how the kernel deals with the fact that
> > both interfaces have the same IP address.
> The kernel sees one IP address, and two nics, with each having some part
> of a network directly attached to it.
>
> > I guess logically it doesn't matter to the kernel, because the routes
> > clearly delineate which interface to send packets to, proxy-arp
> > connects the two LANs, and both interfaces have different MAC
> > addresses.
> Yep.
> > It just seems wrong. :)
> Nope.
> If you think about it: it is CLEAN!
You're definitely right about that. It's a *very* cool solution, I'd
been looking for a way to do this.
[...]
> Another thing I am now busy to find out (I am not sure if this also
> works on 2.2, but I have no reason to believe it does not work):
>
> ip link set up dev eth0
> ip addr add 127.0.0.1/32 dev eth0
> echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth0/proxy_arp
> ip link set up dev eth1
> ip addr add 127.0.0.1/32 dev eth1
> echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth1/proxy_arp
> ip route add x.x.x.96/28 dev eth0
> ip route add x.x.x.97/32 dev eth1
>
> The theory behind it: the IP protocol driver needs to be bound to the
> device. This is done by giving any (bogus) ip address to an interface.
> Only after the IP protocol driver is bound to the interface you can use
> it for IP.
> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf will only show interfaces bound to the IP
> protocol... :)
>
> Of course: you cannot reach the firewall, and the firewall can't reach
> you. You need a non-bogus ip address for that... (Hmmmm: ssh 127.0.0.1
> .. Hah! I hacked the firewall.... shutdown -h now ... Uh? ;) )
Is this for real? So you bind 127.0.0.1 to both eth0 and eth1, not
using an ISP assigned IP at all on the bridging box, and you'd still
be able to route from the ISP's network through to machines on the ISP
assigned network?
That's way too neat. :)
Have you tried this under 2.4?
--
Adrian Chung (adrian at enfusion-group dot com)
http://www.enfusion-group.com/~adrian
GPG Fingerprint: C620 C8EA 86BA 79CC 384C E7BE A10C 353B 919D 1A17
[toad.enfusion-group.com] up 2:11, 1 user, load average: 0.00
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/lartc/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [LARTC] Proxy Arp with same left/right IP address.
2002-02-13 15:35 [LARTC] Proxy Arp with same left/right IP address Adrian Chung
2002-02-13 15:52 ` Ard van Breemen
2002-02-13 16:00 ` Adrian Chung
@ 2002-02-13 16:07 ` Ard van Breemen
2002-02-13 16:13 ` Adrian Chung
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ard van Breemen @ 2002-02-13 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 11:00:35AM -0500, Adrian Chung wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 04:52:09PM +0100, Ard van Breemen wrote:
> > The theory behind it: the IP protocol driver needs to be bound to the
> > device. This is done by giving any (bogus) ip address to an interface.
> > Only after the IP protocol driver is bound to the interface you can use
> > it for IP.
> > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf will only show interfaces bound to the IP
> > protocol... :)
> >
> > Of course: you cannot reach the firewall, and the firewall can't reach
> > you. You need a non-bogus ip address for that... (Hmmmm: ssh 127.0.0.1
> > .. Hah! I hacked the firewall.... shutdown -h now ... Uh? ;) )
> Is this for real? So you bind 127.0.0.1 to both eth0 and eth1, not
> using an ISP assigned IP at all on the bridging box, and you'd still
> be able to route from the ISP's network through to machines on the ISP
> assigned network?
Be careful however, you don't want to send icmp_host_unreachables with
source ip 127.0.0.1, I don't think they get far.
Anyway, 127.0.0.1 is as far as I know a special adres, also for the
kernel. I haven't experimented with that...
If you want to have any sane outgoing source ip addresses, you also
have to set the default source ip for the outgoing routes.
--
<ard@telegraafnet.nl> Telegraaf Elektronische Media http://wwwijzer.nl
http://leerquoten.monster.org/ http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
Let your government know you value your freedom. Sign the petition:
http://petition.eurolinux.org/
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/lartc/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [LARTC] Proxy Arp with same left/right IP address.
2002-02-13 15:35 [LARTC] Proxy Arp with same left/right IP address Adrian Chung
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2002-02-13 16:07 ` Ard van Breemen
@ 2002-02-13 16:13 ` Adrian Chung
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Chung @ 2002-02-13 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lartc
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 05:07:35PM +0100, Ard van Breemen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 11:00:35AM -0500, Adrian Chung wrote:
[...]
> > Is this for real? So you bind 127.0.0.1 to both eth0 and eth1, not
> > using an ISP assigned IP at all on the bridging box, and you'd still
> > be able to route from the ISP's network through to machines on the ISP
> > assigned network?
> Be careful however, you don't want to send icmp_host_unreachables with
> source ip 127.0.0.1, I don't think they get far.
> Anyway, 127.0.0.1 is as far as I know a special adres, also for the
> kernel. I haven't experimented with that...
> If you want to have any sane outgoing source ip addresses, you also
> have to set the default source ip for the outgoing routes.
True enough... However, in my case anyways, it's not an issue. I
already have a box that's using an ISP assigned IP as a gateway, but
using aspects of the above solutions, I can now have all my DMZ
servers funnelled through the one machine.
That means that traffic control/shaping and bandwidth monitoring
should become real easy, as it means one access point into/out of the
network, but still with IP assigned IPs on the DMZ machines.
Sorry if this is not news to anyone else, it's an amazing revelation
to me. :)
--
Adrian Chung (adrian at enfusion-group dot com)
http://www.enfusion-group.com/~adrian
GPG Fingerprint: C620 C8EA 86BA 79CC 384C E7BE A10C 353B 919D 1A17
[toad.enfusion-group.com] up 2:24, 1 user, load average: 0.00
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/lartc/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread