From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To: ѽ҉ᶬḳ℠ <vtol@gmx.net>
Cc: "netfilter@vger.kernel.org" <netfilter@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [nftables] economics of reverse path filtering - FIB expression vs. kernel parameter
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:48:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200213124807.GP2991@breakpoint.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0b6710c6-d2d2-59bd-8054-d4b6203781a1@gmx.net>
ѽ҉ᶬḳ℠ <vtol@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 12/02/2020 11:03, ѽ҉ᶬḳ℠ wrote:
> > On 09/02/2020 12:51, ѽ҉ᶬḳ℠ wrote:
> > > Presumably NFT rule
> > >
> > > * filter prerouting fib saddr . iif oif missing drop
> > >
> > > and kernel parameter
> > >
> > > net.ipv4.conf.<interface>.rp_filter = 2
> > >
> > > achieving the same goal.
> > >
> > > Which one comes into effect first, if there is difference assuming
> > > that both are being processed through netfilter?
prerouting hook comes before routing decision in network stack, so,
if you drop a packet there it will never make it to the routing
decision.
> > Been also wondering about potential conflicts between kernel parameters
> > Another example - here purposely creating a conflict:
> >
> > * net.ipv6.conf.<interface>.accept_redirects = 0
> >
> > vs.
> >
> > * ip6 saddr fe80::/10 ip6 hoplimit 255 daddr FF02::1 icmpv6 type 137
> > accept;
Accepting packet means that processing continues, it
doesn't have any other effect.
So it doesn't matter if you accept redirect packets in nftables or if you
do not have nftables rules at all.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-13 12:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-09 12:51 [nftables] economics of reverse path filtering - FIB expression vs. kernel parameter ѽ҉ᶬḳ℠
2020-02-12 11:03 ` ѽ҉ᶬḳ℠
2020-02-13 12:35 ` ѽ҉ᶬḳ℠
2020-02-13 12:48 ` Florian Westphal [this message]
2020-02-13 12:51 ` Jozsef Kadlecsik
2020-02-13 13:14 ` ѽ҉ᶬḳ℠
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=20200213124807.GP2991@breakpoint.cc \
--to=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=netfilter@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vtol@gmx.net \
/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