From: Wilmer van der Gaast <wilmer@gaast.net>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Mixed IPv4+IPv6 sets
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 11:07:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55F004CC.2080207@gaast.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150907185025.GB17921@salvia>
On 07-09-15 19:50, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>
> Could you illustrate with examples what you would like to have and the
> limitations you currently hitting?
>
So what I was trying to do is define sets with my local + trusted
networks. So for example:
define local = {
192.168.0.0/24,
2001:888:1001:1::/64,
}
define trusted = {
$local
87.198.233.214,
2001:888:1001::/48,
}
So I'd use these as whitelists, could use $trusted as a wider whitelist
for all my networks and $local as just for completely local traffic.
Containing IPv4 and IPv6 addresses/networks.
Now I'd love to be able to just, for example (and apologies for the
likely wrong syntax, I have not been able to start using nftables in
full, just experimenting):
table inet filter {
chain forward {
type filter hook forward priority 0;
...
# (Mostly) don't filter traffic from my trusted nets
inet saddr $trusted accept;
# Filter the rest more strictly.
...
}
}
This won't work because inet is not an existing match rule. I can have
an "inet" table but it still needs to have ip and ip6 match rules
separately. It is nice that many other rules just work like for example
tcp/udp and ct.
Now if I could just do:
# (Mostly) don't filter traffic from my trusted nets
ip saddr $trusted accept;
ip6 saddr $trusted accept;
somehow and have nft take just the v4 and just the v6 addresses for each
line, that would also be workable. Or what I tried doing (but then I ran
into the crash bug I've just reported), is separate the two whitelists
completely and do:
# (Mostly) don't filter traffic from my trusted nets
ip saddr $trusted4 accept;
ip6 saddr $trusted6 accept;
The latter would work and is not bad, just kludgy. Being able to just
refer to a single mixed set of addresses from a single rule would
certainly be the most convenient, as one more step towards fully
unifying IPv4 + IPv6 filtering.
Kind regards,
Wilmer van der Gaast.
--
+-------- .''`. - -- ---+ + - -- --- ---- ----- ------+
| wilmer : :' : gaast.net | | OSS Programmer www.bitlbee.org |
| lintux `. `~' debian.org | | Full-time geek wilmer.gaast.net |
+--- -- - ` ---------------+ +------ ----- ---- --- -- - +
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-09 10:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-06 18:52 Mixed IPv4+IPv6 sets Wilmer van der Gaast
2015-09-07 18:50 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2015-09-08 8:21 ` Arturo Borrero Gonzalez
2015-09-09 10:08 ` Wilmer van der Gaast
2015-09-09 10:07 ` Wilmer van der Gaast [this message]
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=55F004CC.2080207@gaast.net \
--to=wilmer@gaast.net \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pablo@netfilter.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).