On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Tom Eastep <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 3/8/11 3:24 PM, Gianluca Varenni wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Tom Eastep <[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >     PLEASE STOP TOP-POSTING!
> >
> >
> >     On 3/8/11 2:03 PM, Gianluca Varenni wrote:
> >     > I tried adding eth0 to the local zone and the following masq file:
> >     >
> >     > #INTERFACE              SUBNET          ADDRESS         PROTO
> >     PORT(S)
> >     > IPSEC
> >     > eth0:10.0.0.0/8 <http://10.0.0.0/8>         192.168.77.0/24
> >     <http://192.168.77.0/24>       10.17.48.2
> >     > eth2                    192.168.77.0/24 <http://192.168.77.0/24>
> >                 173.166.226.234
> >     >
> >     > but it didn't work. I was trying to ping from 192.168.77.110 to
> >     10.17.48.1,
> >     > and what I was seeing on eth0 was non-masquerated packets.
> >     >
> >
> >     Then there is something in your configuration that you are not
> >     telling us.
> >
> >     > Could it be because I'm trying to SNAT between two RFC1918
> networks?
> >
> >     No. Please include the output of 'shorewall dump' collected as
> described
> >     at http://www.shorewall.net/support.htm#Guidelines.
> >
> >
> > Attached.
> >
>
> Here is a connection that is properly natted:
>
> tcp      6 190420 ESTABLISHED src=192.168.77.150 dst=10.38.10.1
> sport=52923 dport=22 packets=20 bytes=2646 src=10.38.10.1 dst=10.17.48.2
> sport=22 dport=52923 packets=28 bytes=4324 [ASSURED] mark=2 use=1
>
> So the rule *is* working.
>
> Here is a conntrack entry for an un-replied ping:
>
>
> icmp     1 26 src=192.168.77.150 dst=10.17.48.1 type=8 code=0 id=1
> packets=613 bytes=36780 [UNREPLIED] src=10.17.48.1 dst=192.168.77.150
> type=0 code=0 id=1 packets=0 bytes=0 mark=0 use=1
>
> But note this:
>
> Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 340 packets, 22236 bytes)
>  pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source
> destination
>  632 47883 eth2_masq  0    --  *      eth2    0.0.0.0/0
> 0.0.0.0/0
>    0     0 eth0_masq  0    --  *      eth0    0.0.0.0/0
> 0.0.0.0/0
>
> So no new NAT requests were processed after you restarted/reset
> Shorewall. So that entry is left over from before.
>
> Please wait until 'shorewall show connections | grep ^icmp' returns
> nothing and then try to ping again; does it work then?
>

It works only partially. I can now ping 10.17.48.1 (or any host on the
10.17.48.0/23 LAN), but I cannot ping any other host in 10.0.0.0/8. If IP
destination is not in 10.17.48.0/23, it gets sent out masquerated on eth2
(i.e. the WAN interface). shorewall dump attached.

Thanks
GV


> -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 \________________________________________________
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Colocation vs. Managed Hosting
> A question and answer guide to determining the best fit
> for your organization - today and in the future.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d
> _______________________________________________
> Shorewall-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users
>
>

Attachment: dump_20110308_1823.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colocation vs. Managed Hosting
A question and answer guide to determining the best fit
for your organization - today and in the future.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d
_______________________________________________
Shorewall-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users

Reply via email to