Linux Netfilter discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jee J.Z." <jz105@york.ac.uk>
To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org
Subject: Re: icmp echo reply && FORWARD chain
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 23:43:39 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <009801c43096$e999e0a0$68892090@grouse> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 200405021642.01619.Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk

Hi Antony,

Oh, dear! I am making a lot ot mistakes. The rules are as follows:

iptables -F
iptables -F -t nat
iptables -I FORWARD -j QUEUE
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j SNAT --to global_ip
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -j DNAT --to 192.168.0.2

The problem is that it seems icmp request destined to PC2 can be caught by
the FORWARD chain, however, the icmp reply destined to PC2 is ignored by the
FORWARD chain.

Sorry again,
Jee

PS, however, you remind me a kind of setup to make traffic bouncing back to
the same subnet.:p


> On Sunday 02 May 2004 4:29 pm, Jee J.Z. wrote:
>
> > Hi Antony,
> >
> > Sorry for the confusion.
> >
> > > > My rules on a gateway linux box (PC2) are set as follows:
> > > >
> > > > Internet (PC1 and so on)
> > > >   |
> > > >   |
> > > > (eth0:global_ip)
> > > > PC2
> > > > (eth1:192.168.0.1)
> > > >   |
> > > >   |
> > > > Internal networks (PC3 (192.168.0.2) and so on...)
> > > >
> > > > iptables -F
> > > > iptables -F -t nat
> > > > iptables -I FORWARD -j QUEUE
> > > > iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j SNAT --to global_ip
> > > > iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -j DNAT --to 192.168.0.2
> > >
> > > That is a weird-looking rule.   Where does IP 192.168.0.2 exist on the
> > > above diagram?
> >
> > It's the internal IP of PC3. I modified the diagram a little bit. Thank
you.
>
> I modified it a bit too, so we don't have problems with line-wrap.
>
> So, what you're saying is that any packet coming in on eth1, addressed to
> anywhere at all, gets DNATted, and sent straight back out eth1 again, now
> addressed to PC3.   Hm.
>
> Why?
>
> Antony.
>
> PS: I'm not sure if the sig below (which gets selected at random by my
mail
> client) is appropriate here, however I can't see it doing any harm to
remind
> people :)
>
> -- 
> 90% of networking problems are routing problems.
> 9 of the remaining 10% are routing problems in the other direction.
> The remaining 1% might be something else, but check the routing anyway.
>
>                                                      Please reply to the
list;
>                                                            please don't CC
me.
>
>
>



  reply	other threads:[~2004-05-02 22:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-05-02 14:24 icmp echo reply && FORWARD chain Jee J.Z.
2004-05-02 14:46 ` Antony Stone
2004-05-02 15:29   ` Jee J.Z.
2004-05-02 15:42     ` Antony Stone
2004-05-02 22:43       ` Jee J.Z. [this message]
2004-05-02 23:03         ` Antony Stone

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='009801c43096$e999e0a0$68892090@grouse' \
    --to=jz105@york.ac.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