Replies...

> On May 26, 2021, at 12:12 AM, Vincent Wiemann <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> On 5/25/21 11:31 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I'm thinking about something like (taken from my home router):
>> config route
>>         option target '103.136.220.0/22'
>>         option interface 'wan'
>>         option type 'blackhole'
>> config route
>>         option target '103.123.116.0/22'
>>         option interface 'wan'
>>         option type 'blackhole'
>> config route
>>         option target '130.44.212.0/22'
>>         option interface 'wan'
>>         option type 'blackhole'
>> etc.  Kudos to you if you spotted these as being ByteDance TikTok servers in 
>> China which US subscribers aren't supposed to have their traffic sent to, 
>> but (surprise!!!) it still is anyway.
>> A nicer (more compact) notation might be:
>> config route
>>      list target '103.123.116.0/22'
>>         list target '103.136.220.0/22'
>>      list target '130.44.212.0/22'
>>         option interface 'wan'
>>         option type 'blackhole'
>> So, how about a change to config/route where, if it doesn't find 'option 
>> target', then it searches for 'list target' instead, and populates an ipset 
>> instead, using that for the match criteria?
>> We could probably do something similar for config/rule in the firewall, for 
>> the src_ip, src_port, dst_ip, dst_port, etc. using 'list' instead of 
>> 'option', and ipsets to compactly match multiple addresses, ports, etc.
>> But then, firewall would depend on ipset functionality being baked in.  On 
>> x86_64, this isn't big:
>> -rw-r--r--   1 philipp  philipp       823 May 10 22:15 
>> bin/targets/x86/64/packages/kmod-ipt-ipset_5.4.110-1_x86_64.ipk
>> -rw-r--r--   1 philipp  philipp      2036 Mar 19 16:57 
>> bin/packages/x86_64/base/ipset_7.6-1_x86_64.ipk
>> What do you all think?
>> -Philip
> 
> I like the idea of baking in ipset, but it would be very strange to have
> a blackhole route which creates an ipset filter.
> 
> It would avoid user confusion if we stick to the approach here:
> https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/firewall/fw3_configurations/fw3_config_ipset
> 
> Best,
> 
> Vincent


Point taken.  Okay, what about adding ipset support to routes then?

-Philip


_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Reply via email to