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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox