Boris schrieb am 13.11.2018 12:09:
> 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 Hi Boris, is there any particular reason why you want to use the AVM Fritz!Box 7590 as a modem other than that you may have gotten it for free by your provider? From the little experience I have with AVM's boxes, I know that 1) if they support PPPoE passthrough, it's often quirky and 2) don't take it for granted since they might decide to remove PPPoE Passthrough support in a future firmware release as they've done in the past. So, it usually wouldn't cross my mind to use an AVM router as a modem. In addition, the documentation of the 7590 in particular already implies that their PPPoE Passthrough mode does *not* reduce the device to a modem, but rather it allows you to open a *second* PPPoE connection. The 7590 will in any case at least try to open a PPPoE connection for itself [1]. Personally, that looks just like a mess to me if I had such a setup in front of my firewall. I would at least try another device that can be used as a modem and see whether that solves your issues. I can recommend getting a used "Telekom Speedport Entry 2" (I got mine for about 15€, which is a steal). It can be put into a "modem mode" leaving the configuration of the PPPoE connection - including the VLAN tagging - fully up to you and supports VDSL up to 100MBit/s. Regards, Timo [1] https://avm.de/service/fritzbox/fritzbox-7590/wissensdatenbank/publication/show/3232_PPPoE-Passthrough-in-FRITZ-Box-einrichten/ _______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list Shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users
