From: Georgi Georgiev <chutz@gg3.net>
To: Mail List - Netfilter <netfilter@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PPPoE on a bridge, nat sees bridge as incoming interface
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 09:49:18 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080307004918.GB31248@possum.gg3.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47D069BF.9080208@riverviewtech.net>
maillog: 06/03/2008-16:01:35(-0600): Grant Taylor types
> On 3/6/2008 11:22 AM, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
>> I am having trouble understaning how bridging and iptables fit together.
>> The situation that bugs me is: if I do a PPPoE connection over a bridge
>> with a single physical port, my nat table will see any incoming packet as
>> coming from the bridge interface, and not the ppp interface. Why?
>
> With out going any further in your email (I've read the rest but IMHO this
> takes precedence). Is your kernel configured to have IPTables see your
> bridged traffic? Is "CONFIG_BRIDGE_NETFILTER" enabled in your kernel?
> Here is a quote from help from menuconfig about Bridge Netfilter:
>
> "Enabling this option will let arptables resp. iptables see bridged ARP
> resp. IP traffic. If you want a bridging firewall, you probably want this
> option enabled. Enabling or disabling this option doesn't enable or
> disable ebtables."
>
> If you turn this off your bridging will be a purely layer 2 operation that
> IPTables (and ARPTables) will be completely oblivious of. If you wish to
> filter bridged traffic you will have to use EBTables. Incidentally I have
> had better luck turning this off (unless I had to have IPTables filtering
> of bridged traffic) and using EBTables to filter bridged traffic. I
> consider this to be use layer 3 filtering (IPTables and ARPTables) for
> layer 3 traffic and use layer 2 filtering (EBTables) for layer 2 traffic.
> In other words don't use layer 3 filtering for layer 3 and 2 traffic which
> is what this does. Granted you can use IPTables to filter layer 2 traffic,
> however you have to be aware of the ramifications and account for them in
> your firewall and logic in your head.
I agree. I thought the bridge was supposed to behave like a switching
hub. And it probably does, but I had misconfigured it.
I have applided the sysctl fix from the other post in the thread for
now. I'll test your suggestion when I get home.
--
( Georgi Georgiev ( Q: Why did the lone ranger kill Tonto? A: (
) chutz@gg3.net ) He found out what "kimosabe" really means. )
( http://www.gg3.net/ ( (
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-07 0:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-06 17:22 PPPoE on a bridge, nat sees bridge as incoming interface Georgi Georgiev
2008-03-06 22:01 ` Grant Taylor
2008-03-06 22:05 ` Jan Engelhardt
2008-03-07 0:49 ` Georgi Georgiev [this message]
2008-03-07 1:13 ` Pascal Hambourg
2008-03-07 5:16 ` Grant Taylor
2008-03-11 11:08 ` [SOLVED] " Georgi Georgiev
2008-03-11 12:05 ` Jan Engelhardt
2008-03-11 14:32 ` Pascal Hambourg
2008-03-11 15:49 ` Jan Engelhardt
2008-03-06 22:36 ` Pascal Hambourg
2008-03-07 0:43 ` Georgi Georgiev
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=20080307004918.GB31248@possum.gg3.net \
--to=chutz@gg3.net \
--cc=netfilter@vger.kernel.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