From: Bruno de Paula Larini <bruno.larini@riosoft.com.br>
To: Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org>
Cc: "netfilter@vger.kernel.org" <netfilter@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Losing connection between nat and filter tables
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 10:20:37 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5370CAA5.1010805@riosoft.com.br> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <536E602E.5070103@plouf.fr.eu.org>
Hi Pascal, thank you for clarifying the behavior of the rp_filter. And
yes, the two interfaces are in the same network, but it's a limitation
that our ISP imposes to us, as we have a limited range of public IPs in
only one /28 subnet. The objective this "messy" configuration is that
two different groups of users have access to different FTP sites without
having to set a non default port. My only choice was to do a DNAT based
on the destination IP (even though they are on the same network).
Would you do that in a different way? I really apreciate your help!
Em 10/5/2014 14:21, Pascal Hambourg escreveu:
> Hello,
>
> Bruno de Paula Larini a écrit :
>> Wow, thank you Mart! I didn't really think that the rp_filter would have
>> anything to do with it, but in fact it had!
> Of course it does, and it's all your fault.
> Either eth1 and eth2 are actually connected to the same network and
> connecting several interfaces to the same network is wrong and useless
> in most cases, or they are not and defining the same subnets on several
> interfaces which are connected to different networks is wrong. In either
> case, it's wrong. Why did you do so ?
>
>> Even though I had disabled
>> for "all" interfaces, it seems that the rp_filter files for each
>> interface overlaps "all".
> It doesn't overlap. Both values are combined using the MAX operator.
>
> rp_filter functional value for $iface = MAX (all, $iface)
>
> All this and much more is detailed in ip-sysctl.txt.
>
>> But unlike the eth1 interface, the RELATED state isn't allowing (or
>> recognizing) the data channel. After doing a DNAT from port 49152 to
>> 65535, the default data ports for MS FTP, I can now successfully connect
>> through the second interface.
> I'm afraid that's because you messed with the FTP control port. By
> default the FTP conntrack monitors only the port 21. You can either
> specify both 21 and 2121 in the port= option when you load the
> nf_conntrack_ftp module, or DNAT the second address to an IP alias
> address assigned to the same server, so that you don't need to change
> the port.
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-12 13:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-09 14:56 Losing connection between nat and filter tables Bruno de Paula Larini
2014-05-09 15:43 ` Anton Danilov
2014-05-09 16:12 ` Bruno de Paula Larini
2014-05-09 16:48 ` Anton Danilov
2014-05-09 20:45 ` Bruno de Paula Larini
2014-05-09 21:32 ` Mart Frauenlob
2014-05-10 0:31 ` Bruno de Paula Larini
2014-05-10 17:21 ` Pascal Hambourg
2014-05-12 13:20 ` Bruno de Paula Larini [this message]
2014-05-12 22:40 ` Pascal Hambourg
2014-05-11 10:02 ` Mart Frauenlob
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=5370CAA5.1010805@riosoft.com.br \
--to=bruno.larini@riosoft.com.br \
--cc=netfilter@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pascal@plouf.fr.eu.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).