From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jim Laurino <nfcan.x.jimlaur@dfgh.net>
Subject: Re: DNAT Rules. (nfcan: addressed to exclusive sender for this
	address)
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:01:37 -0400
Message-ID: <20050926020137.GA19243@salty>
References: <1057.192.168.1.22.1127673317.squirrel@192.168.1.22>
Reply-To: nfcan.x.jimlaur@dfgh.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1057.192.168.1.22.1127673317.squirrel@192.168.1.22> (from
	+nfcan+jimlaur+c00aeb00ca.vincent#xtra-net.org@spamgourmet.com
	on Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 14:35:17 -0400)
List-Id: <netfilter.vger.kernel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.netfilter.org/mailman/listinfo/netfilter>,
	<mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: </pipermail/netfilter>
List-Post: <mailto:netfilter@lists.netfilter.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.netfilter.org/mailman/listinfo/netfilter>,
	<mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org
Errors-To: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org
Content-Type: text/plain; format="Flowed"; delsp="Yes"; charset="us-ascii"
To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org

On 2005.09.25 14:35, Vincent Blondel - vincent@xtra-net.org wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am trying to configure next set up so a public host can connect to my web
> server located in a dmz.
> 
>                   -----------------------
>   public host --> |  eth1        eth2   | -->  web server
>     x.x.x.x       | 1.2.3.4    10.1.1.1 |      10.1.1.2:80
>                   ----------------------
> 
> As far as I can understand, this typically corresponds to a mix of
> DNAT, SNAT and FORWARD rules.
> Below you can find the rules I have configured until now.
> 
> #####################################################################
I think some of these rules are unnecessary and
may be the source of your problems.

>From what I remember, the DROP policy in
the nat and mangle tables may cause trouble.

I think the SNAT is not needed either, because
the DNAT rule handles the inverse automatically.

You can look at the traffic counters
(iptables -nvx -L,  etc.)
to see which rules are being matched.

If every packet matches the default
policy in the mangle table, for instance,
how will any get to the filter table?

If all the packets go through the filter table,
is a default drop policy needed anywhere else?

I marked the ones below that
I would try turning off first.

Hope that helps.

> 
> # Enable ip forward
> echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
> 
> # Unlimited traffic on the loopback interface
> iptables -A INPUT  -i lo -j ACCEPT
> iptables -A OUTPUT -o lo -j ACCEPT
> 
> # Set the default policy to drop
> iptables --policy INPUT   DROP
> iptables --policy OUTPUT  DROP
> iptables --policy FORWARD DROP
>
#> iptables -t nat --policy PREROUTING  DROP
#> iptables -t nat --policy OUTPUT      DROP
#> iptables -t nat --policy POSTROUTING DROP
#>
#> iptables -t mangle --policy PREROUTING  DROP
#> iptables -t mangle --policy POSTROUTING DROP
#>
#> iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth1 -j SNAT --to-source 1.2.3.4
> 
> iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p tcp --sport 1024:65535 -d 1.2.3.4
> --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 10.1.1.2
> iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth2 -p tcp --sport 1024:65535 -d 10.1.1.2
> --dport 80 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT
> 
> iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j
> ACCEPT
> iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth2 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j
> ACCEPT
> 
> #####################################################################
> 
> But the problem is that it doesn't work and I don't know why ? So can
> somebody help me to solve this problem ?
>

-- 
Jim Laurino
nfcan.x.jimlaur@dfgh.net
Please reply to the list.
Only mail from the listserver reaches this address.