From: <tom@then.fr>
To: netfilter@vger.kernel.org
Subject: NAT, DROP and walled-gardens (~= captive portal)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:13:39 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bad08547704464d914a571f252e59c40@localhost> (raw)
Hey guys,
*Problem*
I've just hit the deprecation of DROP in the NAT tables.
iptables v1.4.7:
The "nat" table is not intended for filtering, the use of DROP is
therefore inhibited.
*Context*
- I have a Centos 6.3 acting as router and running iptables.
- It routes traffic in and out.
- It also has different 'walled-gardens' which restrict a source
IP(s).
- An IP in a 'walled-garden' has for intance the following
restrictions:
* Access to a limited set of servers (in house or on the Net).
* Access to DNS servers
* Port 80 rewritten to a default server
* Drop all the rest of the traffic
- I have different kind of gardens with different set of rules to
restrict IPs (users). A garden must have a default policy set to drop.
- The IP (user) are added and removed from a garden by a software
using iptables.
With our old Centos4 I was using the following which worked fine:
- Example of a walled-garden definition:
/sbin/iptables -t nat -N garden
/sbin/iptables -t nat -A garden -p udp -m udp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to
1.1.1.1
/sbin/iptables -t nat -A garden -p tcp -m tcp -d 3.3.3.3 -j ACCEPT
/sbin/iptables -t nat -A garden -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to
80.80.80.80
/sbin/iptables -t nat -A garden -j DROP
- Definition of the chain where the software will put users in:
/sbin/iptables -t nat -N garden_users
/sbin/iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j garden_users
- Add or remove a user in a garden via software with :
/sbin/iptables -t nat -A garden_users -s IP.TO.GAR.DEN -j garden
/sbin/iptables -t nat -D garden_users -s IP.TO.GAR.DEN -j garden
*Question*
Now, as you know we cannot DROP anymore in a NAT table. Therefore my
gardens are useless because I cannot drop at the end anymore. For the
moment I really don't see how I can easily have the same behaviour than
before. I can see a possible solution with more chains that would
involve the software to iptables -A to different chains which I'd like
to avoid :)
I'd like to have your insights first to see if there is something
obvious I cannot see or not fully understanding.
Any ideas are welcome.
Thomas
next reply other threads:[~2013-01-15 4:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-15 4:13 tom [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-01-15 6:31 NAT, DROP and walled-gardens (~= captive portal) Neal Murphy
2013-01-15 11:18 ` Tom
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=bad08547704464d914a571f252e59c40@localhost \
--to=tom@then.fr \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).