Linux Netfilter discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Mark E. Donaldson" <markee@bandwidthco.com>
To: 'Brian Capouch' <brianc@palaver.net>, netfilter@lists.netfilter.org
Subject: RE: SNAT: I'm going insane
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:58:21 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200401311858.i0VIwJ2O019082@server5.bandwidthco.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <401B5396.8080202@palaver.net>

Is there any chance these packets are getting dropped before they get
SNATTED?  I don't know what your default policies are set to, nor your other
rules, but I would look at this possibility first.  I suggest you run
tcpdump and follow these packets to see what is happening to them.  Also,
you might enable logging of these packets as well to get some additional
information. 

-----Original Message-----
From: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org
[mailto:netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org] On Behalf Of Brian Capouch
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 11:05 PM
To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org
Subject: SNAT: I'm going insane

This ought to be the simplest thing in the world, and I have rules like this
that work.  I hope someone can see something glaringly wrong with what I'm
doing here:

I want to SNAT all traffic from an internal address (10.2.2.2) to an
external one.  So I add to my rules:

iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING -s 10.2.2.2 -j SNAT --to-source
206.230.187.15

I test and my ssh traffic is passing perfectly; I go out to machines on the
net and they show me coming in from 206.230.187.15.

But some--BUT NOT ALL--of my UDP traffic seems to be heading out without any
change.

A short sniff on the *output* interface shows:

02:31:56.696763 10.2.2.2.4569 > blah.blah.net.4569: udp 25 (DF) [tos 0x10] 

02:31:58.699259 10.2.2.2.4569 > blah.blah.net.4569: udp 25 (DF) [tos 0x10] 

02:32:06.704660 10.2.2.2.4569 > blah.blah.net.4569: udp 12 (DF) [tos 0x10

And the packet counters (which I reset for the test) show nothing passing
through:

     0     0 SNAT       all  --  *      eth1    10.2.2.2 
0.0.0.0/0        to:206.230.187.15

UDP traffic going to port 5036, which is heading from this same machine to
the same remote endpoint machine, gets NATted perfectly.

***************************************

Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong?  Other similar rules in this same
table seem to be doing just what they need to. . . .

Thanks in advance for anyone who might be able to offer a potential
explanation.

B.




  parent reply	other threads:[~2004-01-31 18:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-01-31  7:04 SNAT: I'm going insane Brian Capouch
2004-01-31 17:55 ` John A. Sullivan III
2004-01-31 18:58 ` Mark E. Donaldson [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-01-31 19:00 Carl Farrington
2004-01-31 19:20 ` Mark E. Donaldson
2004-01-31 19:22 Carl Farrington
2004-01-31 19:37 ` Cedric Blancher
     [not found]   ` <401C05E1.5030204@palaver.net>
2004-01-31 21:06     ` Cedric Blancher

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=200401311858.i0VIwJ2O019082@server5.bandwidthco.com \
    --to=markee@bandwidthco.com \
    --cc=brianc@palaver.net \
    --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