From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.netfilter.org (mail.netfilter.org [217.70.190.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E51E1DF748 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:51:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.190.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743439913; cv=none; b=fEW6Jf5Gdi16/g6ajX18GGGa19rWbttWiU/rQZYkNqK9d7sw6suIvfGH0DXa5pT/iNw+apdwMmoTi2eE3rzF5rMxhxL1dTEzI9bOFKGndnBv0MuaXP9NrcwaQD4j4s84Iq/BJjc4ysT0TuyJjOvT93SLOcLgC88VbDURo6fNGog= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743439913; c=relaxed/simple; bh=IsmfPYZ7y6n3oe9adDqJfaYy9iLlHNHpJxQQVYjdYAg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=EgisoRxLoctZc5FYmtwgdvpCK5ijrjuOf+gciYM3ht2ydMOfAbAkDwV8pB3oaboAEJuqiK2/E0yGlP0yCj6dhGE7FXfnVsXgsI0FgvBjXFwlHAKgWoNk6WX8XIDhzqSPu96qWSFgpfBir3CPdgay/uqfvZF08fzt4GdgYeHEZiw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=netfilter.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=netfilter.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=netfilter.org header.i=@netfilter.org header.b=SuV8MMLR; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=netfilter.org header.i=@netfilter.org header.b=SuV8MMLR; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.190.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=netfilter.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=netfilter.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=netfilter.org header.i=@netfilter.org header.b="SuV8MMLR"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=netfilter.org header.i=@netfilter.org header.b="SuV8MMLR" Received: by mail.netfilter.org (Postfix, from userid 109) id 8F4F2603BD; Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:51:48 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netfilter.org; s=2025; t=1743439908; bh=IsmfPYZ7y6n3oe9adDqJfaYy9iLlHNHpJxQQVYjdYAg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=SuV8MMLRPEf7S/+pi2UhjAtbjDXJpkGj7AFs40u8ZjbZqmgjOQ4ynWElwl8JOWeVV umcY76350VGOTYEXue8XR+j0ERVJKLPRuIFnhd0g0amA5d7NKuW2R162p7WCYeJrM8 +WPDpDsF507HhP2XAlXAfam0m53SsoZDEe+9H4TEtVevLExg8VAtVmpSs4orAi3cDU kU11nFtyIDDltd7fkhuCjHS9MH+Ss/9YgWK5hndTvLGu/fM8Jq44Loy2tvsDx3FxbX uIaT/wgsTLsr77aukCCoc5P2cMDIbbaX5CmNMMAskzSkNdsQ4gYQZaOUJyLx086tt+ +TUcVTC9eXAeA== X-Spam-Level: Received: from netfilter.org (mail-agni [217.70.190.124]) by mail.netfilter.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 16B87603AB; Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:51:48 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netfilter.org; s=2025; t=1743439908; bh=IsmfPYZ7y6n3oe9adDqJfaYy9iLlHNHpJxQQVYjdYAg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=SuV8MMLRPEf7S/+pi2UhjAtbjDXJpkGj7AFs40u8ZjbZqmgjOQ4ynWElwl8JOWeVV umcY76350VGOTYEXue8XR+j0ERVJKLPRuIFnhd0g0amA5d7NKuW2R162p7WCYeJrM8 +WPDpDsF507HhP2XAlXAfam0m53SsoZDEe+9H4TEtVevLExg8VAtVmpSs4orAi3cDU kU11nFtyIDDltd7fkhuCjHS9MH+Ss/9YgWK5hndTvLGu/fM8Jq44Loy2tvsDx3FxbX uIaT/wgsTLsr77aukCCoc5P2cMDIbbaX5CmNMMAskzSkNdsQ4gYQZaOUJyLx086tt+ +TUcVTC9eXAeA== Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:51:46 +0200 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso To: Bradley Hook Cc: netfilter@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Packets not traversing postrouting chain Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netfilter@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:19:31AM -0500, Bradley Hook wrote: [...] > The issue we are seeing is that packets from 192.168.122.252 to > 8.8.8.8 are not traversing the postrouting chain at all. We can see > the packets leaving the interface without NAT applied. We can see the > packets hitting the forward chain with the trace. Other traffic from > other subnets are being masqueraded just fine. We just aren't seeing > the packets from 192.168.122.x/24 hit any postrouting rules at all. Can you check if connection tracking is tagging these packets as invalid?