Am 25.09.18 um 10:21 schrieb Boris: > Am 25.09.2018 um 00:50 schrieb Tom Eastep: >> On 09/24/2018 01:55 PM, Boris wrote: >>> Am 24.09.2018 um 19:12 schrieb Tom Eastep: >>>> On 09/05/2018 08:16 AM, Boris wrote: >>>>> Hej SW-list, >>>>> >>>>> This is the first time that I'm writing directly to the SW list. First >>>>> of all, I want to thank you for this great software! I can hardly >>>>> believe that I have been using SW for more than 15 years - embedded in >>>>> the also great environment of LEAF (Linux Embedded Appliance Framework >>>>> (formerly Firewall)). >>>>> >>>>> And now, for the first time, I have a problem that I don't understand >>>>> and hope for help: >>>>> My LEAF box (Ver. 6.x with SW 5.1.7.2 on Alix hardware) worked great on >>>>> a VDSL internet line with 25 Mbps / 5Mbps. I used a FritzBox 7490 as >>>>> modem (PassThrough). I have a web server and a mail server in a DMZ >>>>> segment, a few desktop PCs in the LAN segment and a few wireless devices >>>>> in a WLAN segment. The box also serves as an OpenVPN server. Nothing >>>>> really extraordinary, I think. >>>>> >>>>> A few hours ago I got a new internet line switched with higher >>>>> bandwidth. Unfortunately, I don't (yet) have any detailed technical >>>>> specifications for the line other than the bandwidth (100Mbps / 40Mbps). >>>>> A new FritzBox 7590 serves as modem. During a conversation with the >>>>> support of the provider the keyword 'VLAN 7' was mentioned. This seems >>>>> to indicate a BNG connection from Telekom, but I didn't have to set up >>>>> VLAN tagging. >>>>> >>>>> Now to the problem description: With the unchanged SW configuration, >>>>> REJECTS of TCP packets from and to the zone 'net' occur, which were >>>>> transported correctly before the switchover! It looks like some packets >>>>> are passing through sporadically, but I can't secure that and I can't >>>>> even reproduce it. All other zones work fine with each other, so >>>>> loc-wlan, wlan-dmz, dmz-loc and so on. In addition, icmp packets are >>>>> transported over the zone net without any problems. >>>>> In order to be able to use my environment, I removed all restrictions as >>>>> a temporary solution, with a global statement in /shorewall/policy: >>>>> all all ACCEPT >>>>> This is of course undesirable and I am looking for the cause of the >>>>> problem. I asked the provider for detailed specifications of the line. >>>>> Maybe someone has an idea here? I deactivated the global ACCEPT again >>>>> and made a dump, which is attached. >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks and many greetings, >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Your internet interface is now eth0, not ppp0. So you need to change >>>> your configuration. >>>> >>>> -Tom >>>> >>> >>> Hej Tom, >>> >>> thank you very much for your statement! >>> >>> I'm sure you have one or more very good reason to come to this >>> conclusion. Could you please give a little explanation? >>> >>> Finally, I'm afraid you missunderstood my description of the situation. >>> >>> ppp is still doing the login and ppp0 is the interface that 'owns' the >>> public IP: >>> >>> # ip addr sh: >>> >>> [snip] >>> 3: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast >>> state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1000 >>> link/ether 00:0d:b9:13:fb:d8 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff >>> [snip] >>> 13: ppp0: <POINTOPOINT,MULTICAST,NOARP,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1492 qdisc >>> pfifo_fast state UNKNOWN group default qlen 3 >>> link/ppp >>> inet 217.70.192.188 peer 213.178.81.101/32 scope global ppp0 >>> valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever >>> >>> Of course I tried to follow your hint and changed ppp0 into eth0 in >>> /etc/shorewall/interfaces and /etc/shorewall/snat. Did I miss something >>> to change? >>> As result, no client in loc, wlan or dmz could connect to any host in >>> net. So I switched back.... >>> >> >> Okay. I looked at the log messages and assumed that eth0 was the net >> interface since all of the messages: >> >> a) Had eth0 as the source interface. >> b) Were created out of the INPUT or FORWARD chain. >> >> This is an indication that eth0 is not defined to Shorewall yet packets >> are being received on that interface. This is very strange since eth0 >> doesn't even have an IP address. Given that all of the logged packets >> are apparently response packets, it would seem that response IP packets >> are being sent to your firewall from the Fritzbox rather than (or in >> addition to) being sent via PPPoE. That is why an all->all policy of >> ACCEPT is allowing your firewall to work. >> >> If that analysis is correct, then the problem is not in your Shorewall >> configuration but in the configuration of PPPoE link. >> >> -Tom > > Hej Tom, > > thanks again for your brainwork! > > This is extremely interesting and seems to be the one and only > explanation for the strange behaviour. I will think it over and > hopefully create an idea of how to handle. >
Hej Tom, hej list, here I am again after some weeks of discussions with AVM and the ISP - with no success nor solution. Also, I took a break working on this because I'm quite frustrated. But after all, there should be a way to make the shorewall work again. It's not a good feeling without safety on that level.... AVM admits the fact that pppoe is not passed directly through. So I hope (an actually this seems to be the last chance) there might be a workaround on teh LEAF-box, maybe directly in ShoreWall. Is it possible to define eth0 there as a kind of incoming-only interface? In my imagination there could be something like a forwarding-packet-relay from th0 to ppp0 so that SW accepts the respose packets on ppp0. But I have no idea how this could be realized.... I would be extremly glad about any idea to solve that tricky problem! Thanks in advance, Boris _______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list Shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users