Static/Dynamic NAT Combination

Static/Dynamic NAT Combination

[Patrick Leslie Polzer]

Hello list,

a short question...

With this setup:

Box A on Net A
192.168.35.247

Box B on Net B
192.168.1.2

Firewall/Router
192.168.1.1/192.168.34.184/PPP address


is it possible to NAT Box B statically (i.e. 1:1, except on specific
ports, e.g. 6666/6667) and Box A dynamically (i.e. with flexible port numbers)?


Many thanks,

Leslie

Re: Static/Dynamic NAT Combination

[Jorge Davila]

Patrick Leslie Polzer wrote:

>Hello list,
>
>a short question...
>
>With this setup:
>
>Box A on Net A
>192.168.35.247
>
>Box B on Net B
>192.168.1.2
>
>Firewall/Router
>192.168.1.1/192.168.34.184/PPP address
>
>
>is it possible to NAT Box B statically (i.e. 1:1, except on specific
>ports, e.g. 6666/6667) and Box A dynamically (i.e. with flexible port numbers)?
>
>
>Many thanks,
>
>Leslie
>  
>
What do you want to do?

There is a link:
http://www.netfilter.org/documentation/HOWTO/NAT-HOWTO.html#toc6

Re: Static/Dynamic NAT Combination

[Patrick Leslie Polzer]

On Fri, 28 May 2004 14:04:14 -0600
Jorge Davila <isaac@nicaraguarealestate.com> wrote:

> What do you want to do?
Masquerade Box A with flexible port numbers via the router's PPP connection
and the same thing for box B with static port numbers.

Based on the docs I am not sure whether this is possible with Netfilter.

I hope I am able to express this quite complicated thing in a way that
you can understand it...


Leslie

Re: Static/Dynamic NAT Combination

[Antony Stone]

On Friday 28 May 2004 9:18 pm, Patrick Leslie Polzer wrote:

> On Fri, 28 May 2004 14:04:14 -0600
>
> Jorge Davila <isaac@nicaraguarealestate.com> wrote:
> > What do you want to do?
>
> Masquerade Box A with flexible port numbers via the router's PPP connection
> and the same thing for box B with static port numbers.
>
> Based on the docs I am not sure whether this is possible with Netfilter.
>
> I hope I am able to express this quite complicated thing in a way that
> you can understand it...

I'm not sure I understand, certainly.

What do the port numbers matter?   When doing static or dynamic NAT, it's 
usually the IP addresses that people are bothered about.

I suggest either:

1. Give us a specific example of what you want to happen, showing us the 
source & destination addresses & port numbers for machines A & B, so we can 
see exactly what you want to do, or

2. Show us what wouldn't work using a standard 1-1 NAT ruleset, or a standard 
"masquerade everything behind one IP" ruleset

Regards,

Antony.

-- 

I want to build a machine that will be proud of me.

 - Danny Hillis, creator of The Connection Machine

                                                     Please reply to the list;
                                                           please don't CC me.

Re: Static/Dynamic NAT Combination

[Jorge Davila]

Patrick Leslie Polzer wrote:

>On Fri, 28 May 2004 14:04:14 -0600
>Jorge Davila <isaac@nicaraguarealestate.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>What do you want to do?
>>    
>>
>Masquerade Box A with flexible port numbers via the router's PPP connection
>and the same thing for box B with static port numbers.
>
>Based on the docs I am not sure whether this is possible with Netfilter.
>
>I hope I am able to express this quite complicated thing in a way that
>you can understand it...
>
>
>Leslie
>  
>
Put an example for a better explanation of the situation...

Well, the masqueranding proces is about "hide" the internal adresses 
.... and this not depend on the ports.... ports are only criterias for 
the rules...

Jorge Dávila.

Re: Static/Dynamic NAT Combination

[Patrick Leslie Polzer]

On Fri, 28 May 2004 21:27:42 +0100
Antony Stone <Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk> wrote:

> 1. Give us a specific example of what you want to happen, showing us the 
> source & destination addresses & port numbers for machines A & B, so we can 
> see exactly what you want to do
Okay, maybe this time I'm better at it.

There is a thing called 'binat' on OpenBSD.
'binat' does NAT on _all_ incoming and outgoing connections on a specific
interface, so I guess it is basically SNAT and DNAT combined in Netfilter
jargon.
So let's say there a router "R" with an interface called ppp0
(1.1.1.1) and another one called eth0 (192.168.1.1/24), and a last
one called eth1 (192.168.2.1/24).
Moreover assume a box called 'A' on the eth0 network, and another one
called 'B' on the eth1 network.
So think of 'A' as my main working machine - it runs a webserver
and maybe a lot more listening daemons. So I'd like to redirect
any connections to R/ppp0:* to 'A' - with ports preserved of course.
Also, any connection from eth0 which is routed via R/ppp0 must get
translated - again, preferably (but this time not a must) without
any port changing. That's the thing for box 'A' - not much of a problem
for Netfilter, I suppose. Now 'B' comes into play. 'B' wants the standard
NAT via R/ppp0 to the internet - no special stuff with ports here, just
standard SNAT.
Now, will there be any conflicts with this setup? Is it possible at all?
To make things even more complicated, some ports should be excluded from
the DNAT R/ppp0:* -> A, like 6667, because I want to run an IRC server
on R (which is up 24/7).

I hope this time my explanations are easier to understand as I don't
like wasting other people's time for nothing.

Thanks!

Leslie

Re: Static/Dynamic NAT Combination

[Jorge Davila]

Patrick Leslie Polzer wrote:

>On Fri, 28 May 2004 21:27:42 +0100
>Antony Stone <Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>1. Give us a specific example of what you want to happen, showing us the 
>>source & destination addresses & port numbers for machines A & B, so we can 
>>see exactly what you want to do
>>    
>>
>Okay, maybe this time I'm better at it.
>
>There is a thing called 'binat' on OpenBSD.
>'binat' does NAT on _all_ incoming and outgoing connections on a specific
>interface, so I guess it is basically SNAT and DNAT combined in Netfilter
>jargon.
>So let's say there a router "R" with an interface called ppp0
>(1.1.1.1) and another one called eth0 (192.168.1.1/24), and a last
>one called eth1 (192.168.2.1/24).
>Moreover assume a box called 'A' on the eth0 network, and another one
>called 'B' on the eth1 network.
>So think of 'A' as my main working machine - it runs a webserver
>and maybe a lot more listening daemons. So I'd like to redirect
>any connections to R/ppp0:* to 'A' - with ports preserved of course.
>Also, any connection from eth0 which is routed via R/ppp0 must get
>translated - again, preferably (but this time not a must) without
>any port changing. That's the thing for box 'A' - not much of a problem
>for Netfilter, I suppose. Now 'B' comes into play. 'B' wants the standard
>NAT via R/ppp0 to the internet - no special stuff with ports here, just
>standard SNAT.
>Now, will there be any conflicts with this setup? Is it possible at all?
>To make things even more complicated, some ports should be excluded from
>the DNAT R/ppp0:* -> A, like 6667, because I want to run an IRC server
>on R (which is up 24/7).
>
>I hope this time my explanations are easier to understand as I don't
>like wasting other people's time for nothing.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Leslie
>  
>
pp0
+--------+
| router  |
+--------+
eth0 -> for net 192.168.1.0/24 -> here is the box A  [ in box A are many 
daemons runing ]
eth1 -> for net 192.168.2.0/24 -> here is the  box  B  [ nated ]

.- All packets *to* (pp0 and service port [in A]) must be *redirected* 
to box A. The packets wich destination port is a service port on A must 
go to A
.- If incoming packets in pp0 has a destination port over 1024 must pass 
the pp0 device with alteration....

I think thtat iptables can do the task.....