My bad, the internal network is actually /12, not /20. I'm sending you
the output of shorewall dump in a separate email.

Thanks.

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Tom Eastep <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/8/10 11:37 PM, Can Bican wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In order to blacklist rfc1918 networks from the Internet, I use
>> NULL_ROUTE_RFC1918=Yes and it works perfectly. However, I noticed a
>> minor problem which I think shorewall should warn before. One of the
>> firewalls I configured had the 172.16.0.0/20 as the internal
>> interface, running version 4.4.6 on Ubuntu 10.04.1. Enabling
>> NULL_ROUTE_RFC1918, routing for the internal interface disappeared and
>> blacklisted. I think this behaviour conflicts with the manual, which
>> says:
>>
>> "...When combined with route filtering (ROUTE_FILTER=Yes or
>> routefilter in shorewall-interfaces[9](5)), this option ensures that
>> packets with an RFC1918 source address are only accepted from
>> interfaces having known routes to networks using such addresses."
>>
>> I looked around for a way to customize this option to exclude
>> 172.16/20, but it appears that there are none, so maybe shorewall
>> should check for exact route matches before adding rfc1918 blacklists.
>>
>> Or is there another way to fix this? (Apart from narrowing the range
>> of the internal network)
>>
>
> NULL_ROUTE_RFC1918 creates these three routes:
>
> unreachable 192.168.0.0/16
> unreachable 172.16.0.0/12
> unreachable 10.0.0.0/8
>
> Because 172.16.0.0/20 is more specific than 172.16.0.0.12, the above
> null route does not masq your route to your internal interface. Here is
> the main routing table on my own firewall:
>
> gateway:~# ip route ls
> 172.20.0.2 dev tun0  proto kernel  scope link  src 172.20.0.1
> 70.90.191.120/29 dev eth1  proto kernel  scope link  src 70.90.191.121
> 172.20.0.0/25 via 172.20.0.2 dev tun0
> 172.20.1.0/24 dev eth4  proto kernel  scope link  src 172.20.1.254
> 10.1.10.0/24 dev eth1  proto kernel  scope link  src 10.1.10.11
> unreachable 192.168.0.0/16
> unreachable 172.16.0.0/12
> unreachable 10.0.0.0/8
> 224.0.0.0/4 dev eth4  scope link
> gateway:~#
>
> Note that I have a number of routes to subnets of 172.16.0.0/12 but
> those routes appear in the routing table before 172.16.0.0/12.
>
> So something else must be going on with your configuration. Please
> forward the output of 'shorewall dump' with NULL_ROUTE_RFC1918 enabled
> and I'll take a look (you can send it to me privately if you like).
>
> -Tom
> --
> Tom Eastep        \ When I die, I want to go like my Grandfather who
> Shoreline,         \ died peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming like
> Washington, USA     \ all of the passengers in his car
> http://shorewall.net \________________________________________________
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Next 800 Companies to Lead America's Growth: New Video Whitepaper
> David G. Thomson, author of the best-selling book "Blueprint to a
> Billion" shares his insights and actions to help propel your
> business during the next growth cycle. Listen Now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SAP-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Shorewall-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Next 800 Companies to Lead America's Growth: New Video Whitepaper
David G. Thomson, author of the best-selling book "Blueprint to a 
Billion" shares his insights and actions to help propel your 
business during the next growth cycle. Listen Now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/SAP-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Shorewall-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users

Reply via email to