Linux Netfilter discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Carlos Fernandez Sanz" <cfs-netfilter@nisupu.com>
To: Antony Stone <Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk>,
	netfilter <netfilter@lists.netfilter.org>
Subject: Re: Routing problem
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:15:39 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <003101c3f30d$67d8ed20$1530a8c0@HUSH> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 200402140909.20468.Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk

> > The link between the carrier and the linux box happens using WAN
addresses,
> > ie. 172.x.y.1 (them) <--> 172.x.y.99 (us). All traffic is exchanged
using
> > those two addresses - they just won't route traffic not being routed
from
> > 172.x.y.99.
>
> Oh, so when you say "WAN address", you actually mean another private
address
> (172.x.x.1), not the public address you've been assigned as part of your
> pool?

Exactly. WAN is the term the carrier uses for this.
>
> I think I understand now - you're talking about the router addresses which
can
> talk to each other, not the source addresses of the packets being
routed...

Exactly. Those are always public IP addresses.

> > The route also has 192.168.21.1 on another NIC, which is connected to
our
> > own LAN. It also has our first public address - so traffic we generate
to
> > internet uses this public address, and traffic coming from internet goes
to
> > this public address. (being routed through the 172.x.y.z) addresses.
>
> What (exactly) do you mean by "It also has our first public address"?   Is
> that public IP assigned to one of your router's interfaces?   If it is,
then
> simply connect the machine needing the second public IP address on it to
that
> interface, pointing to the first public IP as the default route.
Provided
> your NAT rules are only applied to what was originally 192.168.21.x
traffic,
> then those packets with (source address = second public IP) will simply go
> through the router and work without NAT.
>
> If, on the other hand, you don't mean that the first public IP has been
> assigned to one of the interfaces on your router, then I see you have
three
> choices (no doubt there are others, maybe some will be suggested by
people):
>
> 1. Add another interface to the router, assign it your first public IP,
and
> proceed as described in the paragraph above.
>
> 2. Add another interface to the machine requiring the public IP, make sure
the
> software running on it binds to the public IP and not the private one, and
> set up a route on your router telling it "public IP number 2 can be found
via
> this gateway", giving it the private address of the special machine as the
> gateway address.
>
> 3. Add an interface to the router and assign it some completely new IP
> address, outside any of the network ranges you are currently using (eg
> 192.168.250.1), and create a point-to-point link to the machine requiring
the
> public IP (which now needs only one interface, and is assigned that public
> IP, but again using a point-to-point route).
>
> You might be able to achieve any of the above using a virtual interface
> instead of a physical one, but that would be harder to debug in the event
of
> problems.
>
> I hope we're getting somewhere now :)
>
> > Just for the record, our user is a SAP employee who needs to access the
SAP
> > internal network from our office. They have a setup to allow workers to
> > connect from home, etc, but obviously they didn't thought they could
connect
> > from another LAN...
>
> Why don't they just use a VPN?
>
> Antony.
>
> -- 
> In science, one tries to tell people
> in such a way as to be understood by everyone
> something that no-one ever knew before.
>
> In poetry, it is the exact opposite.
>
>  - Paul Dirac
>
>



  reply	other threads:[~2004-02-14 15:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-02-13 15:39 Routing problem Carlos Fernandez Sanz
2004-02-13 15:50 ` Antony Stone
2004-02-13 16:30   ` Carlos Fernandez Sanz
2004-02-13 17:12     ` Antony Stone
2004-02-14  8:41       ` Carlos Fernandez Sanz
2004-02-14  9:09         ` Antony Stone
2004-02-14 15:15           ` Carlos Fernandez Sanz [this message]
2004-02-14 15:19           ` Carlos Fernandez Sanz
2004-02-14 15:38             ` Antony Stone
2004-02-16 10:13       ` Problems with kernel 2.6.1 and iptables Jan Kaastrup
2004-02-16 10:26         ` Ray Leach
2004-02-16 10:47           ` Antony Stone
2004-02-16 11:19             ` Ray Leach
2004-02-16 13:18         ` Alexis
2004-02-16 14:05           ` Jan Kaastrup
2004-02-13 17:16     ` Routing problem Scott MacKay
2004-02-14  8:47       ` Carlos Fernandez Sanz
2004-02-13 16:53 ` John A. Sullivan III
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-07-27  7:23 Michelle Konzack
2004-07-27  7:42 ` Sven Schuster
2004-07-27  8:06   ` Michelle Konzack
2004-07-27 14:21     ` Sven Schuster
2004-07-28  8:32       ` Michelle Konzack
2003-08-13 18:26 GG Noris
2002-09-20 14:29 Routing Problem Tom Fischer

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='003101c3f30d$67d8ed20$1530a8c0@HUSH' \
    --to=cfs-netfilter@nisupu.com \
    --cc=Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk \
    --cc=netfilter@lists.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