Search Results

Search found 152 results on 7 pages for 'masquerade'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 1/7 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  | Next Page >

  • It is okay to set MASQUERADE at 2 network interfaces in a Linux server?

    - by Patrick L
    There is a Linux server with 3 network interfaces, eth0, eth1, eth2. IP forwarding has been turn on in this server. eth0 is connected to 10.0.1.0/24. Its IP is 10.0.1.1. eth1 is connected to 172.16.1.0/24. Its IP is 172.16.1.1. Server A can ping router C at 172.16.1.2. eth2 is connected to 192.168.1.0/24. Its IP is 192.168.1.1. Server A can ping server B at 192.168.1.2. Router C is able to route to 172.16.2.0/24 and 172.16.3.0/24. [10.0.1.0/24] | 172.16.2.0/24------| | [C]------172.16.1.0/24------[A]------192.168.1.0/24------[B] 172.16.3.0/24------| We have set MASQUERADE at eth0. When server B (192.168.1.2) connect to 10.0.1.0/24, IP MASQUERADE will happen at eth0. Can we set MASQUERADE at eth1? Is it okay to set MASQUERADE at more than 1 network interfaces in Linux?

    Read the article

  • Masquerade traffic from certain source IP to VPN connection

    - by Shuo Ran
    Network Setup: 10.0.0.1 Router: to internet 10.0.0.70 Server: Ubuntu based server,default gateway is 10.0.0.1 10.0.0.51 PC I created a PPTP connection(interface: ppp0) on Server to a machine on the internet, what I want to do is route all the traffic from certain IP address(10.0.0.51) through the PPTP connection and then to the internet. What I did are: Set the gateway on PC(10.0.0.51) as 10.0.0.70 Enabled ipv4 forward on 10,0,0,70 Add the masquerade rule to iptable: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o ppp0 -s 10.0.0.51 -j MASQUERADE After that, it seems none of the traffic from 10.0.0.51 be redirected to ppp0, instead these traffic are still going through 10.0.0.1 directly. Any thoughts on it?

    Read the article

  • Vyatta masquerade out bridge interface

    - by miquella
    We have set up a Vyatta Core 6.1 gateway on our network with three interfaces: eth0 - 1.1.1.1 - public gateway/router IP (to public upstream router) eth1 - 2.2.2.1/24 - public subnet (connected to a second firewall 2.2.2.2) eth2 - 10.10.0.1/24 - private subnet Our ISP provided the 1.1.1.1 address for us to use as our gateway. The 2.2.2.1 address is so the other firewall (2.2.2.2) can communicate to this gateway which then routes the traffic out through the eth0 interface. Here is our current configuration: interfaces { bridge br100 { address 2.2.2.1/24 } ethernet eth0 { address 1.1.1.1/30 vif 100 { bridge-group { bridge br100 } } } ethernet eth1 { bridge-group { bridge br100 } } ethernet eth2 { address 10.10.0.1/24 } loopback lo { } } service { nat { rule 100 { outbound-interface eth0 source { address 10.10.0.1/24 } type masquerade } } } With this configuration, it routes everything, but the source address after masquerading is 1.1.1.1, which is correct, because that's the interface it's bound to. But because of some of our requirements here, we need it to source from the 2.2.2.1 address instead (what's the point of paying for a class C public subnet if the only address we can send from is our gateway!?). I've tried binding to br100 instead of eth0, but it doesn't seem to route anything if I do that. I imagine I'm just missing something simple. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Vyatta masquerade out bridge interface

    - by miquella
    We have set up a Vyatta Core 6.1 gateway on our network with three interfaces: eth0 - 1.1.1.1 - public gateway/router IP (to public upstream router) eth1 - 2.2.2.1/24 - public subnet (connected to a second firewall 2.2.2.2) eth2 - 10.10.0.1/24 - private subnet Our ISP provided the 1.1.1.1 address for us to use as our gateway. The 2.2.2.1 address is so the other firewall (2.2.2.2) can communicate to this gateway which then routes the traffic out through the eth0 interface. Here is our current configuration: interfaces { bridge br100 { address 2.2.2.1/24 } ethernet eth0 { address 1.1.1.1/30 vif 100 { bridge-group { bridge br100 } } } ethernet eth1 { bridge-group { bridge br100 } } ethernet eth2 { address 10.10.0.1/24 } loopback lo { } } service { nat { rule 100 { outbound-interface eth0 source { address 10.10.0.1/24 } type masquerade } } } With this configuration, it routes everything, but the source address after masquerading is 1.1.1.1, which is correct, because that's the interface it's bound to. But because of some of our requirements here, we need it to source from the 2.2.2.1 address instead (what's the point of paying for a class C public subnet if the only address we can send from is our gateway!?). I've tried binding to br100 instead of eth0, but it doesn't seem to route anything if I do that. I imagine I'm just missing something simple. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Debian 6 Internet connection sharing aka IP masquerade not working

    - by Rautamiekka
    The problem: the computers [Xbox 360 and a Kubuntu 12.04.1 laptop] can't access Internet through a recently-installed desktopless Debian 6 laptop (which is wirelessly connected to a WLAN station) but addresses are successfully given by dnsmasq. The attempts: 1.1) /etc/dnsmaq.conf conffed according to http://wiki.debian.org/HowTo/dnsmasq: add lines interface=eth0 dhcp-range=192.168.0.50,192.168.0.150,255.255.255.0,12h 1.2) Follow http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/rhel-fedora-linux-internet-connection-sharing-howto/ and use their script to setup iptables. 2) Follow the Ubuntu Internet Gateway Method (iptables) at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Internet/ConnectionSharing recommended and which worked at Share internet in Linux. The Debian laptop was rebooted many times and between each attempt, with and without the script auto-executing via /etc/rc.local. While adding the iptables-restore command to that file I disabled the script.

    Read the article

  • How can Firefox masquerade as Chrome?

    - by Christos Jonathan Hayward
    I have access to Firefox but not Chrome under XP. I would like extensions to make it more Chrome-like: in particular, 1: A tabbed theme that works like Chrome. 2: One address/search bar that will go to URLs and submit search queries appropriately. (I have already installed "Download Statusbar.") I am looking on a relatively superficial level; I'm not hoping to simulate V8 or Chrome's screaming render times. But I would like a setup that minimally breaks the illusion for someone accustomed to Chrome.

    Read the article

  • IP Masquerade and forwarding

    - by poelinca
    Hi all , i got a dedicated server running ubuntu server 10.10 with 3 ip adresses on the same eth card ( example: eth0 192.168.0.1 , eth0:0 188.78.45.0 , eth0:1 ... ) with a 3 virtual machines running ( virtualization technologi used is lxc but i don't think this matters too much ) . Now i need to redirect all ports opened ( using ufw to close/open ports ) from the ip 188.78.54.0 ( eth0:0 ) to a virtual machine ip ( let's say for example 192.168.2.3 ) , all requests made by a virtual machine should be redirected back to the virtual machine that made the request ( in this example 192.168.2.3 ) . Lets say the second vm has the ip 192.168.2.4 now i need to redirect all opened ports to from eth0:1 to this ip and viceversa . And so on and so on , what are the iptables/ufw rules to get this done ? and where to save them ( witch config file ) so they stay the same after reboot . In a few words redirect all requests comming from/to eth0:0 to a certan ip , all requests comming from/to eth0:1 to another ip ... Remember i'm saying all ports opened becouse they might be dynamicly changed . p.s. please excuse my bad english

    Read the article

  • Ports do not open after rules appended in iptables

    - by user2699451
    I have a server that I am trying to setup for OpenVPN. I have followed all the steps, but I see that when I try to connect to it in Windows, it doesn't allow me, it just hangs on connecting, so I did a nmap scan and I see that port 1194 is not open so naturally I append the rule to open 1194 with: iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 1194 -j ACCEPT followed by service iptables save and service iptables restart which all executed successfully. Then I try again, but it doesn't work and another nmap scan says that port 1194 is closed. Here is the iptables configuration: # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.7 on Thu Oct 31 09:47:38 2013 *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [27410:3091993] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [5042:376160] -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT --to-source 41.185.26.238 -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE COMMIT # Completed on Thu Oct 31 09:47:38 2013 # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.7 on Thu Oct 31 09:47:38 2013 *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [23571:2869068] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [27558:3656524] :vl - [0:0] -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 5252 -m comment --comment "SSH Secure" -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type 8 -m state --state NEW,RELATED,ESTABLISHED -$ -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -m comment --comment "SSH" -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -m comment --comment "HTTP" -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 8080 -m comment --comment "HTTPS" -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 443 -m comment --comment "HTTP Encrypted" -j ACCEP$ -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 1723 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i eth0 -p gre -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 1194 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -i ppp+ -o eth0 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o ppp+ -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -s 10.8.0.0/24 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-port-unreachable -A OUTPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type 0 -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j A$ COMMIT # Completed on Thu Oct 31 09:47:38 2013 and my nmap scan from: localhost: nmap localhost Starting Nmap 5.51 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2013-10-31 09:53 SAST Nmap scan report for localhost (127.0.0.1) Host is up (0.000011s latency). Other addresses for localhost (not scanned): 127.0.0.1 Not shown: 996 closed ports PORT STATE SERVICE 22/tcp open ssh 25/tcp open smtp 443/tcp open https 1723/tcp open pptp Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 0.06 seconds remote pc: nmap [server ip] Starting Nmap 6.00 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2013-10-31 09:53 SAST Nmap scan report for rla04-nix1.wadns.net (41.185.26.238) Host is up (0.025s latency). Not shown: 858 filtered ports, 139 closed ports PORT STATE SERVICE 22/tcp open ssh 443/tcp open https 8008/tcp open http Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 15.70 seconds So, I do not know what is causing this, any assistance will be appreciated! UPDATE AFTER FIRST ANSWER::: [root@RLA04-NIX1 ~]# iptables -A FORWARD -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT [root@RLA04-NIX1 ~]# iptables -A FORWARD -s 10.8.0.0/24 -j ACCEPT [root@RLA04-NIX1 ~]# iptables -A FORWARD -j REJECT [root@RLA04-NIX1 ~]# iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE [root@RLA04-NIX1 ~]# service iptables save iptables: Saving firewall rules to /etc/sysconfig/iptables:[ OK ] [root@RLA04-NIX1 ~]# service iptables restart iptables: Flushing firewall rules: [ OK ] iptables: Setting chains to policy ACCEPT: filter nat [ OK ] iptables: Unloading modules: [ OK ] iptables: Applying firewall rules: [ OK ] [root@RLA04-NIX1 ~]# lsof -i :1194 -bash: lsof: command not found iptables -L -n Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:5252 /* SSH Secure */ ACCEPT icmp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 icmp type 8 state NEW,RELATED,ESTABLISHED ACCEPT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 ACCEPT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:22 /* SSH */ ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:80 /* HTTP */ ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:8080 /* HTTPS */ ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:443 /* HTTP Encrypted */ ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:1723 ACCEPT 47 -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 ACCEPT udp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 udp dpt:1194 Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 ACCEPT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 ACCEPT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED ACCEPT all -- 10.8.0.0/24 0.0.0.0/0 REJECT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable ACCEPT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED ACCEPT all -- 10.8.0.0/24 0.0.0.0/0 REJECT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT icmp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 icmp type 0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED Chain vl (0 references) target prot opt source destination [root@RLA04-NIX1 ~]# nmap localhostt Starting Nmap 5.51 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2013-10-31 11:13 SAST remote pc nmap [server ip] Starting Nmap 6.00 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2013-10-31 11:11 SAST Nmap scan report for rla04-nix1.wadns.net (41.185.26.238) Host is up (0.020s latency). Not shown: 858 filtered ports, 139 closed ports PORT STATE SERVICE 22/tcp open ssh 443/tcp open https 8008/tcp open http Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 4.18 seconds localhost nmap localhost Starting Nmap 5.51 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2013-10-31 11:13 SAST Nmap scan report for localhost (127.0.0.1) Host is up (0.000011s latency). Other addresses for localhost (not scanned): 127.0.0.1 Not shown: 996 closed ports PORT STATE SERVICE 22/tcp open ssh 25/tcp open smtp 443/tcp open https 1723/tcp open pptp Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 0.06 seconds UPDATE AFTER SCANNING UDP PORTS Sorry, I am noob, I am still learning, but here is the output for: nmap -sU [server ip] Starting Nmap 6.00 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2013-10-31 11:33 SAST Nmap scan report for [server address] ([server ip]) Host is up (0.021s latency). Not shown: 997 open|filtered ports PORT STATE SERVICE 53/udp closed domain 123/udp closed ntp 33459/udp closed unknown Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 8.57 seconds btw, no changes have been made since post started (except for iptables changes)

    Read the article

  • iptables advanced routing

    - by Shamanu4
    I have a Centos server acting as a NAT in my network. This server has one external (later ext1) interface and three internal (later int1, int2 and int3). Egress traffic comes from users via int1 and after MASQUERADE goes via ext1. Ingress traffic comes from ext1, MASQUERADE, and goes via int2 or int3 according to static routes. | ext1 | x.x.x.x/24 +---------|----------------------+ | | | Centos server (NAT) | | | +---|------|---------------|-----+ | | | int1 | | int2 | int3 10.30.1.10/24 | | 10.30.2.10/24 | 10.30.3.10/24 ^ v v 10.30.1.1/24 | | 10.30.2.1/24 | 10.30.3.1/24 +---|------|---------------|-----+ | | | | | | | v v | | ^ -Traffic policer- | | |_____________ | | | | | +------------------|-------------+ | 192.168.0.1/16 | | Clients 192.168.0.0/16 The problem: Egress traffic seems to be dropped after PREROUTING table. Packet counters are not changing on MASQUERADE rule in POSTROUTING. If I change the routes to clients causing the traffic go back via int1 - everything works perfectly. current iptable configuration is very simple: # cat /etc/sysconfig/iptables *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] -I INPUT 1 -i int1 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -j ACCEPT COMMIT *nat -A POSTROUTING -o ext1 -j MASQUERADE # COMMIT Can anyone point me what I'm missing? Thanks. UPDATE: 192.168.100.60 via 10.30.2.1 dev int2 proto zebra # routes to clients ... 192.168.100.61 via 10.30.3.1 dev int3 proto zebra # ... I have a lot of them x.x.x.0/24 dev ext1 proto kernel scope link src x.x.x.x 10.30.1.0/24 dev int1 proto kernel scope link src 10.30.1.10 10.30.2.0/24 dev int2 proto kernel scope link src 10.30.2.10 10.30.3.0/24 dev int3 proto kernel scope link src 10.30.3.10 169.254.0.0/16 dev ext1 scope link metric 1003 169.254.0.0/16 dev int1 scope link metric 1004 169.254.0.0/16 dev int2 scope link metric 1005 169.254.0.0/16 dev int3 scope link metric 1006 blackhole 192.168.0.0/16 default via x.x.x.y dev ext1 Clients have 192.168.0.1 as gateway, which is redirecting them to 10.30.1.1

    Read the article

  • OpenVPN and PPTP on XEN VPS

    - by amiv
    I have Debian based system (Ubuntu 11.10) on XEN VPS. I've installed OpenVPN and works great. I need to install PPTP too, so did it and clients can connect, but they have no internet on client side. If I connect to VPN over PPTP I can ping and access to only my VPS by its IP, but ony that. There's no "internet" on client side. It looks it's not DNS problems (I'm using 8.8.8.8) because I can't ping known IPs. I bet the solution is simple, but don't have any idea. Any guess? /etc/pptpd.conf option /etc/ppp/pptpd-options logwtmp localip 46.38.xx.xx remoteip 10.1.0.1-10 /etc/ppp/pptpd-options name pptpd refuse-pap refuse-chap refuse-mschap require-mschap-v2 require-mppe-128 ms-dns 8.8.8.8 ms-dns 8.8.4.4 proxyarp nodefaultroute lock nobsdcomp /etc/ppp/ip-up [...] ifconfig ppp0 mtu 1400 /etc/sysctl.conf [...] net.ipv4.ip_forward=1 Command which I run: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT --to-source 46.38.xx.xx (IP of my VPS) The client can connect, first one gets IP 10.1.0.1 and DNS from Google. I bet it's iptables problem, am I right? I'm iptables noob and I don't have idea what's wrong. And here's the ifconfig and route command before client connect via PPTP: root@vps3780:~# route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface default xx.xx.tel.ru 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0 10.8.0.0 10.8.0.2 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 10.8.0.2 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 tun0 46.38.xx.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 root@vps3780:~# ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:16:3e:56:xx:xx inet addr:46.38.xx.xx Bcast:0.0.0.0 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::216:xx:xx:dfb6/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:22671 errors:0 dropped:81 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:2266 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:1813358 (1.8 MB) TX bytes:667626 (667.6 KB) Interrupt:24 lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:100 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:100 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:10778 (10.7 KB) TX bytes:10778 (10.7 KB) tun0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 inet addr:10.8.0.1 P-t-P:10.8.0.2 Mask:255.255.255.255 UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:602 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:612 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:90850 (90.8 KB) TX bytes:418904 (418.9 KB) And here's the ifconfig and route command after client connect via PPTP: root@vps3780:~# route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface default xx.xx.tel.ru 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0 10.1.0.1 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0 10.8.0.0 10.8.0.2 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 10.8.0.2 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 tun0 46.38.xx.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 root@vps3780:~# ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:16:3e:56:xx:xx inet addr:46.38.xx.xx Bcast:0.0.0.0 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::216:xx:xx:dfb6/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:22989 errors:0 dropped:82 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:2352 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:1841310 (1.8 MB) TX bytes:678456 (678.4 KB) Interrupt:24 lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:112 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:112 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:12102 (12.1 KB) TX bytes:12102 (12.1 KB) ppp0 Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol inet addr:46.38.xx.xx P-t-P:10.1.0.1 Mask:255.255.255.255 UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1400 Metric:1 RX packets:66 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:15 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:3 RX bytes:10028 (10.0 KB) TX bytes:660 (660.0 B) tun0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 inet addr:10.8.0.1 P-t-P:10.8.0.2 Mask:255.255.255.255 UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:602 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:612 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:90850 (90.8 KB) TX bytes:418904 (418.9 KB) And ugly iptables --list output: root@vps3780:~# iptables --list Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere state RELATED,ESTABLISHED ACCEPT all -- 10.8.0.0/24 anywhere REJECT all -- anywhere anywhere reject-with icmp-port-unreachable ACCEPT all -- 10.1.0.0/24 anywhere ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere state RELATED,ESTABLISHED ACCEPT all -- 10.1.0.0/24 anywhere REJECT all -- anywhere anywhere reject-with icmp-port-unreachable ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere state RELATED,ESTABLISHED ACCEPT all -- 10.8.0.0/24 anywhere REJECT all -- anywhere anywhere reject-with icmp-port-unreachable And ugly iptables -t nat -L output: root@vps3780:~# iptables -t nat -L Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination SNAT all -- 10.8.0.0/24 anywhere to:46.38.xx.xx MASQUERADE all -- 10.1.0.0/24 anywhere SNAT all -- 10.1.0.0/24 anywhere to:46.38.xx.xx SNAT all -- 10.8.0.0/24 anywhere to:46.38.xx.xx SNAT all -- 10.1.0.0/24 anywhere to:46.38.xx.xx MASQUERADE all -- anywhere anywhere SNAT all -- anywhere anywhere to:46.38.xx.xx SNAT all -- 10.8.0.0/24 anywhere to:46.38.xx.xx MASQUERADE all -- anywhere anywhere MASQUERADE all -- 10.1.0.0/24 anywhere MASQUERADE all -- anywhere anywhere MASQUERADE all -- 10.1.0.0/24 anywhere As I said - OpenVPN works very good. 10.8.0.0/24 for OpenVPN (on tun0). PPTP won't work. 10.1.0.0/24 for PPTP (on ppp0). Clients can connect, but they haven't "internet". Any suggestions will be appreciated. Second whole day fighting with no results. EDIT: iptables -t filter -F - it resolved my problem :-)

    Read the article

  • Mikrotik and NAT/Routing issue

    - by arul
    I have basic NAT/Routing problem with Mikrotik RB750 that I've been unable to solve over the past days. From our ISP we have 26 IP addresses: 10.10.10.192/27, with 10.10.10.193 being the gateway and 10.10.10.194 the first available IP. What I need is that everything connected to ether2 gets a public IP from the DHCP server, and everything connected to ether3 gets a local IP from another DHCP (192.168.100.0/24). All clients should have internet access (I'll figure out bandwidth throttling later) and optimally just 'see' each other (all boxes are Win7, I guess this can ultimately be handled with VPN). Here is my setup: ether1 (10.10.10.194) is connected directly to ISP. 20 clients connected to ether2(10.10.10.195), and another 20 to ether3(10.10.10.196) (both through same 24 port switches). This is my setup, which doesn't work, all 20 clients from ether2 can access the internet, though all comm. seems to come from 10.10.10.194 (is this due to the masquerade on ether1?), and ether3 can't access the internet at all. I think that I need to masquerade ether3, and SNAT/DNAT or NETMAP ether2, but that doesn't work either, I guess that I need to somehow 'wire' both ether2+3 to ether1. Address list: # ADDRESS NETWORK INTERFACE 0 ;;; public 10.10.10.194/32 10.10.10.192 ether1-gateway 1 ;;; inner DHCP 192.168.100.0/24 192.168.100.0 ether3-private 2 ;;; public 10.10.10.195/32 10.10.10.192 ether2-pub 3 ;;; public 10.10.10.196/32 10.10.10.192 ether3-private NAT 0 ;;; ether3 nat chain=srcnat action=src-nat to-addresses=10.10.10.196 src-address=192.168.100.0/24 out-interface=ether3-private 1 ;;; ether3 nat chain=dstnat action=dst-nat to-addresses=192.168.100.0/24 in-interface=ether3-private 2 ;;; ether1 masquerade chain=srcnat action=masquerade to-addresses=10.10.10.194 out-interface=ether1-gateway Routes: # DST-ADDRESS PREF-SRC GATEWAY DISTANCE 0 A S 0.0.0.0/0 ether1-gateway 1 2 A S 10.10.10.192/27 10.10.10.195 ether2-pub 1 3 ADC 10.10.10.192/32 10.10.10.195 ether2-pub 0 ether1-gateway ether3-private 4 ADC 192.168.100.0/24 192.168.100.0 ether3-private 0 IP Pools: # NAME RANGES 0 public-pool 10.10.10.201-10.10.10.220 1 private-pool 192.168.100.2-192.168.100.254 DHCP configs: # NAME INTERFACE RELAY ADDRESS-POOL LEASE-TIME ADD-ARP 0 public-dhcp ether2-pub public-pool 3d 1 private-dhcp ether3-private private-pool 3d Thanks!

    Read the article

  • iptables blocking ssh communication

    - by Michal Sapsa
    I'm using this script for iptables: #!/bin/sh echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward iptables -F iptables -X iptables -F -t nat iptables -X -t nat iptables -F -t filter iptables -X -t filter iptables -t filter -P FORWARD DROP iptables -t filter -A FORWARD -s 192.168.0.0/255.255.0.0 -d 0/0 -j ACCEPT iptables -t filter -A FORWARD -s 0/0 -d 192.168.0.0/255.255.0.0 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.1/255.255.255.0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -A FORWARD -s 10.8.0.1/255.255.255.0 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.0.0/24 -d 0/0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -I FORWARD -p tcp --tcp-flags SYN,RST SYN -j TCPMSS --clamp-mss-to-pmtu iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p udp --dport 16161 -j DNAT --to 192.168.0.251:16161 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p udp --sport 16161 -j DNAT --to 192.168.0.251:16161 #openvpn iptables -I INPUT -p tcp --dport 1194 -j ACCEPT iptables -I INPUT -p udp --dport 1194 -j ACCEPT I end up with some iptables rules that should work but don't work - probably because of me. # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.12 on Mon May 26 13:15:43 2014 *raw :PREROUTING ACCEPT [1657523:1357257330] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [36804:34834370] -A PREROUTING -p icmp -j TRACE -A PREROUTING -p tcp -j TRACE -A OUTPUT -p icmp -j TRACE -A OUTPUT -p tcp -j TRACE COMMIT # Completed on Mon May 26 13:15:43 2014 # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.12 on Mon May 26 13:15:43 2014 *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [5033:345623] :INPUT ACCEPT [154:34662] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [6:1968] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [2:120] -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 16161 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.0.251:22 -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 16161 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.0.251:22 -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -j MASQUERADE -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.0.0/24 -j MASQUERADE COMMIT # Completed on Mon May 26 13:15:44 2014 # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.12 on Mon May 26 13:15:44 2014 *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [548:69692] :FORWARD DROP [8:384] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [2120:1097479] -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 1194 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 1194 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -p tcp -m tcp --tcp-flags SYN,RST SYN -j TCPMSS --clamp-mss-to-pmtu -A FORWARD -s 192.168.0.0/16 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -d 192.168.0.0/16 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -s 10.8.0.0/24 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT COMMIT TRACE at PREROUTEING AND OUTPUT are only for debuging this thing. When I ssh at public ip with port 16161 I don't get any message, only TimeOut so it looks like I don't get communication back to remote server. ETH0 is the world, ETH1 is LAN Any IPTABLES Masters willing to give a hand ? iptables -vL Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 20548 packets, 3198K bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 38822 7014K ACCEPT udp -- any any anywhere anywhere udp dpt:openvpn 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- any any anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:openvpn Chain FORWARD (policy DROP 1129 packets, 64390 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 214K 11M TCPMSS tcp -- any any anywhere anywhere tcpflags: SYN,RST/SYN TCPMSS clamp to PMTU 4565K 1090M ACCEPT all -- any any 192.168.0.0/16 anywhere 5916K 7315M ACCEPT all -- any any anywhere 192.168.0.0/16 0 0 ACCEPT all -- any any 10.8.0.0/24 anywhere 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- any any anywhere 192.168.0.251 tcp dpt:16161 Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 59462 packets, 19M bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination

    Read the article

  • How secure is a subnet?

    - by HorusKol
    I have an unfortunate complication in my network - some users/computers are attached to a completely private and firewalled office network that we administer (10.n.n.x/24 intranet), but others are attached to a subnet provided by a third party (129.n.n.x/25) as they need to access the internet via the third party's proxy. I have previously set up a gateway/router to allow the 10.n.n.x/24 network internet access: # Allow established connections, and those !not! coming from the public interface # eth0 = public interface # eth1 = private interface iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state NEW ! -i eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allow outgoing connections from the private interface iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT # Masquerade (NAT) iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE # Don't forward any other traffic from the public to the private iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j REJECT However, I now need to enable access to users on our 129.n.n.x/25 subnet to some private servers on the 10.n.n.x/24 network. I figured that I could do something like: # Allow established connections, and those !not! coming from the public interface # eth0 = public interface # eth1 = private interface #1 (10.n.n.x/24) # eth2 = private interface #2 (129.n.n.x/25) iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state NEW ! -i eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth2 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allow outgoing connections from the private interfaces iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT # Allow the two public connections to talk to each other iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth2 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT # Masquerade (NAT) iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE # Don't forward any other traffic from the public to the private iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j REJECT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth2 -j REJECT My concern is that I know that the computers on our 129.n.n.x/25 subnet can be accessed via a VPN through the larger network operated by the provider - therefore, would it be possible for someone on the provider's supernet (correct term? inverse of subnet?) to be able to access our private 10.n.n.x/24 intranet?

    Read the article

  • OpenVPN server will not redirect traffic

    - by skerit
    I set up an OpenVPN server on my VPS, using this guide: http://vpsnoc.com/blog/how-to-install-openvpn-on-a-debianubuntu-vps-instantly/ And I can connect to it without problems. Connect, that is, because no traffic is being redirected. When I try to load a webpage when connected to the vpn I just get an error. This is the config file it generated: dev tun server 10.8.0.0 255.255.255.0 ifconfig-pool-persist ipp.txt ca ca.crt cert server.crt key server.key dh dh1024.pem push "route 10.8.0.0 255.255.255.0" push "redirect-gateway" comp-lzo keepalive 10 60 ping-timer-rem persist-tun persist-key group daemon daemon This is my iptables.conf # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.4 on Sat May 7 13:09:44 2011 *raw :PREROUTING ACCEPT [37938267:10998335127] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [35616847:14165347907] COMMIT # Completed on Sat May 7 13:09:44 2011 # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.4 on Sat May 7 13:09:44 2011 *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [794948:91051460] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [1603974:108147033] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [1603974:108147033] -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o eth1 -j MASQUERADE -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o venet0 -j MASQUERADE COMMIT # Completed on Sat May 7 13:09:44 2011 # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.4 on Sat May 7 13:09:44 2011 *mangle :PREROUTING ACCEPT [37938267:10998335127] :INPUT ACCEPT [37677226:10960834925] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [35616847:14165347907] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [35680187:14169930490] COMMIT # Completed on Sat May 7 13:09:44 2011 # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.4 on Sat May 7 13:09:44 2011 *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [37677226:10960834925] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [35616848:14165347947] -A INPUT -i eth0 -j LOG --log-prefix "BANDWIDTH_IN:" --log-level 7 -A FORWARD -o eth0 -j LOG --log-prefix "BANDWIDTH_OUT:" --log-level 7 -A FORWARD -i eth0 -j LOG --log-prefix "BANDWIDTH_IN:" --log-level 7 -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -j LOG --log-prefix "BANDWIDTH_OUT:" --log-level 7 COMMIT # Completed on Sat May 7 13:09:44 2011

    Read the article

  • How to forward OpenVPN Port to NAT'd XEN domU

    - by John
    I want to install a OpenVPN domU on XEN. Dom0 and domU are running Debian Squeeze, all domU are on a NAT'd privat network 10.0.0.1/24 My VPN-Gate is von 10.0.0.1 and running. How can I make it accessible under the dom0 public IP? I tried forwarding the port using iptables, but without any success. Here is what i did: ~ # iptables -L -n -v Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 1397 packets, 118K bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 930 packets, 133K bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED PHYSDEV match --physdev-out vif5.0 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 PHYSDEV match --physdev-in vif5.0 udp spt:68 dpt:67 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED PHYSDEV match --physdev-out vif5.0 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 10.0.0.1 0.0.0.0/0 PHYSDEV match --physdev-in vif5.0 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED PHYSDEV match --physdev-out vif3.0 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 PHYSDEV match --physdev-in vif3.0 udp spt:68 dpt:67 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED PHYSDEV match --physdev-out vif3.0 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 10.0.0.5 0.0.0.0/0 PHYSDEV match --physdev-in vif3.0 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED PHYSDEV match --physdev-out vif2.0 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 PHYSDEV match --physdev-in vif2.0 udp spt:68 dpt:67 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED PHYSDEV match --physdev-out vif2.0 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 10.0.0.2 0.0.0.0/0 PHYSDEV match --physdev-in vif2.0 147 8236 ACCEPT tcp -- eth0 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state NEW tcp dpt:80 13 546 ACCEPT udp -- eth0 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 udp dpt:1194 Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 1000 packets, 99240 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination ~ # iptables -L -t nat -n -v Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 324 packets, 23925 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 139 7824 DNAT tcp -- eth0 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:80 to:10.0.0.5:80 1 42 DNAT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 udp dpt:1194 to:10.0.0.1:1194 Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 92 packets, 5030 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 863 64983 MASQUERADE all -- * eth0 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 0 0 MASQUERADE all -- * eth0 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 0 0 MASQUERADE all -- * eth0 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 180 packets, 13953 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination

    Read the article

  • Default Gateway solution on NAT'd network (best options)

    - by kwiksand
    I've recently changed a network from a bunch of machines exposed to the net on a network to a more security conscious Firewall-fronted network with a DMZ for public services. Everything's mostly working perfectly now, but I've got the old problem of NAT Loopback where a machine within the LAN wants to access a public service via the public/external IP. I've solved this problem previously in a small/SOHO environment simply using NAT loopback features of the router in use or a simple iptables rule to do the same, but I want to make sure I make the most resilient choice with the least concern. It seems I can: Use iptables as I've said to DNAT and MASQUERADE the change source/destination so the connection works correctly i.e iptables -A PREROUTING -t nat -d ip.of.eth0.here -p tcp --dport 8080 -j DNAT --to 192.168.0.201:8080 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.0.0/24 -p tcp --dport 8080 -d 192.168.0.201 -j MASQUERADE Use split DNS, with internal mappings for public IP's Potentially do some route nastyness by setting the Default Gateway to use a different externally exposed IP to then come back in the public route (messy) Someone mentioned putting the Default Gateway within the DMZ as well (on serverfault), but I can't find the post again. I'm sure this is a common issue for many with NAT'd networks, but I've not really seen the perfect solve all when it comes to fixing this problem. What is your opinion?

    Read the article

  • Change OpenVZ route to pass through ip failover

    - by Kevin Campion
    I have one dedicaced server with its own IP and another IP (failover) who refer to the first. I will wish to change the gateway of a Proxmox virtual machine (openvz) who runs on this dedicaced server to go through the failover IP rather than the ip of host main server. Once connected to a virtual machine, when I do a traceroute VE# traceroute www.google.fr traceroute to www.google.fr (209.85.229.104), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 MY_SERVER_NAME.ovh.net (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx FIRST_IP_MAIN_SERVER) 0.021 ms 0.010 ms 0.009 ms The first line tells me the ip of host main server. I would like that the traceroute display the second IP failover. VE# route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.0.2.1 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 venet0 default 192.0.2.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 venet0 With iptables HOST# iptables -t nat -L Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination MASQUERADE all -- anywhere anywhere MASQUERADE all -- anywhere anywhere SNAT tcp -- anywhere 10.10.101.2 tcp dpt:www state NEW,RELATED,ESTABLISHED,UNTRACKED to:SECOND_IP_FAILOVER SNAT all -- 10.10.101.2 anywhere to:SECOND_IP_FAILOVER 10.10.101.2 is the virtual machine IP (interface venet0) Any ideas ?

    Read the article

  • Enabling NAT forwarding using a second WAN interface and a second gateway on ubuntu

    - by nixnotwin
    I have 3 interfaces: eth0 192.168.0.50/24 eth1 10.0.0.200/24 eth2 225.228.123.211 The default gateway is 192.168.0.1 which I want to keep as it is in the changes I want to make. I want to masquerade eth1 10.0.0.200/24 and enable NAT forwarding to eth2. So I have done this: ip route add 225.228.123.208/29 dev eth2 src 225.228.123.211 table t1 ip route add default via 225.228.123.209 dev eth2 table t1 ip rule add from 225.228.123.211 table t1 ip rule add to 225.228.123.211 table t1 Now I can receive ping replies from any internet host if I did: ping -I eth2 8.8.8.8 To enable NAT forwarding I did this: sudo iptables -A FORWARD -o eth2 -i eth1 -s 10.0.0.0/24 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -j ACCEPT sudo iptables -A FORWARD -m conntrack --ctstate ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT sudo iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth1 -j MASQUERADE But it isn't working. To test I used a client pc and put it on 10.0.0.0/24 network and gateway was set as 10.0.0.200. I want to have 192.168.0.1 as default gateway. And the traffic that comes in via eth1 10.0.0.200/24 should be forwarded to eth2 225.228.123.211. I have enabled forwarding on ubuntua also.

    Read the article

  • Linux VLAN Bridge

    - by raspi
    I have home network with VLANs, one for LAN, one for WLAN and one for internet. I'd like to use bridging so that instead of configuring these same VLANs to every machine, they had own VLAN ID and bridges were LAN, WLAN and internet. I've tried it but for some reason keep-alive/ttl seems to get broken because SSH sessions etc suddenly disconnects. We have this same setup working in workplace for 4+ years with 100+ customers but it's custom firewall/router hardware so accessing it is impossible. I know that it runs Linux. So what is Debian/Ubuntu default network settings doing wrong or is it just NIC driver/hw problem? I've tried to mess araund with ttl etc settings without any luck. The bad stuff is happening in the bridge because current VLAN-only setup works fine. interfaces: auto lo iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface allow-hotplug eth0 allow-hotplug eth1 iface eth0 inet static iface eth1 inet static auto vlan111 auto vlan222 auto vlan333 auto vlan444 auto br0 auto br1 auto br2 # LAN iface vlan111 inet static vlan_raw_device eth0 # WLAN iface vlan222 inet static vlan_raw_device eth0 # ADSL Modem iface vlan333 inet static vlan_raw_device eth1 # Internet iface vlan444 inet static vlan_raw_device eth0 # LAN bridge iface br0 inet static address 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth0.111 bridge_stp on # Internet bridge iface br1 inet static address x.x.x.x netmask x.x.x.x gateway x.x.x.x bridge_ports eth1.333 eth0.444 bridge_stp on post-up iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o br1 -j MASQUERADE pre-down iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -o br1 -j MASQUERADE # WLAN bridge iface br2 inet static address 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth0.222 bridge_stp on Sysctl: net.ipv4.conf.default.forwarding=1

    Read the article

  • IPTABLE & IP-routed netwok solution for HOST net and VM's subnet

    - by Daniel
    I've got ProxmoxVE2.1 ruled KVM node on Debian and bunch of VM's guests machine. That is how my networking looks like: # network interface settings auto lo iface lo inet loopback # device: eth0 auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 175.219.59.209 gateway 175.219.59.193 netmask 255.255.255.224 post-up echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth0/proxy_arp And I've got two working subnet solution auto vmbr0 iface vmbr0 inet static address 10.10.0.1 netmask 255.255.0.0 bridge_ports none bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 post-up ip route add 10.10.0.1/24 dev vmbr0 This way I can reach internet, to resolve outside hosts, update and download everything I need but can't reach one guest VM out of any other VM's inside my network. The second solution allows me to communicate between VM's: auto vmbr1 iface vmbr1 inet static address 10.10.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports none bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 post-up echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward post-up iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s '10.10.0.0/24' -o vmbr1 -j MASQUERADE post-down iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -s '10.10.0.0/24' -o vmbr1 -j MASQUERADE I can even NAT internal addresses: -t nat -I PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 789 -j DNAT --to-destination 10.10.0.220:345 My inexperienced mind is ready to double VM's net adapters: one for the first solution and another - for second (with slightly different adresses) but I'm pretty sure that it's a dumb way to resolve the problem and everything can be resolved via iptables/ip route rules that I can't create. I've tried a dozen of "wizard manuals" and "howto's" to mix both solution but without success. Looking for an advice (and good reading links for networking begginers).

    Read the article

  • OpenVPN + iptables / NAT routing

    - by Mikeage
    Hi, I'm trying to set up an OpenVPN VPN, which will carry some (but not all) traffic from the clients to the internet via the OpenVPN server. My OpenVPN server has a public IP on eth0, and is using tap0 to create a local network, 192.168.2.x. I have a client which connects from local IP 192.168.1.101 and gets VPN IP 192.168.2.3. On the server, I ran: iptables -A INPUT -i tap+ -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i tap+ -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.2.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE On the client, the default remains to route via 192.168.1.1. In order to point it to 192.168.2.1 for HTTP, I ran ip rule add fwmark 0x50 table 200 ip route add table 200 default via 192.168.2.1 iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -j MARK -p tcp --dport 80 --set-mark 80 Now, if I try accessing a website on the client (say, wget google.com), it just hangs there. On the server, I can see $ sudo tcpdump -n -i tap0 tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode listening on tap0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes 05:39:07.928358 IP 192.168.1.101.34941 > 74.125.67.100.80: S 4254520618:4254520618(0) win 5840 <mss 1334,sackOK,timestamp 558838 0,nop,wscale 5> 05:39:10.751921 IP 192.168.1.101.34941 > 74.125.67.100.80: S 4254520618:4254520618(0) win 5840 <mss 1334,sackOK,timestamp 559588 0,nop,wscale 5> Where 74.125.67.100 is the IP it gets for google.com . Why isn't the MASQUERADE working? More precisely, I see that the source showing up as 192.168.1.101 -- shouldn't there be something to indicate that it came from the VPN? Edit: Some routes [from the client] $ ip route show table main 192.168.2.0/24 dev tap0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.4 192.168.1.0/24 dev wlan0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.101 metric 2 169.254.0.0/16 dev wlan0 scope link metric 1000 default via 192.168.1.1 dev wlan0 proto static $ ip route show table 200 default via 192.168.2.1 dev tap0

    Read the article

  • How to set a static route for an external IP address

    - by HorusKol
    Further to my earlier question about bridging different subnets - I now need to route requests for one particular IP address differently to all other traffic. I have the following routing in my iptables on our router: # Allow established connections, and those !not! coming from the public interface # eth0 = public interface # eth1 = private interface #1 (10.1.1.0/24) # eth2 = private interface #2 (129.2.2.0/25) iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state NEW ! -i eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth2 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allow outgoing connections from the private interfaces iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT # Allow the two private connections to talk to each other iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth2 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT # Masquerade (NAT) iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE # Don't forward any other traffic from the public to the private iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j REJECT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth2 -j REJECT This configuration means that users will be forwarded through a modem/router with a public address - this is all well and good for most purposes, and in the main it doesn't matter that all computers are hidden behind the one public IP. However, some users need to be able to access a proxy at 192.111.222.111:8080 - and the proxy needs to identify this traffic as coming through a gateway at 129.2.2.126 - it won't respond otherwise. I tried adding a static route on our local gateway with: route add -host 192.111.222.111 gw 129.2.2.126 dev eth2 I can successfully ping 192.111.222.111 from the router. When I trace the route, it lists the 129.2.2.126 gateway, but I just get * on each of the following hops (I think this makes sense since this is just a web-proxy and requires authentication). When I try to ping this address from a host on the 129.2.2.0/25 network it fails. Should I do this in the iptables chain instead? How would I configure this routing?

    Read the article

  • LXC, Port forwarding and iptables

    - by Roberto Aloi
    I have a LXC container (10.0.3.2) running on a host. A service is running inside the container on port 7000. From the host (10.0.3.1, lxcbr0), I can reach the service: $ telnet 10.0.3.2 7000 Trying 10.0.3.2... Connected to 10.0.3.2. Escape character is '^]'. I'd love to make the service running inside the container accessible to the outer world. Therefore, I want to forward port 7002 on the host to port 7000 on the container: iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 7002 -j DNAT --to 10.0.3.2:7000 Which results in (iptables -t nat -L): DNAT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:afs3-prserver to:10.0.3.2:7000 Still, I cannot access the service from the host using the forwarded port: $ telnet 10.0.3.1 7002 Trying 10.0.3.1... telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused I feel like I'm missing something stupid here. What things should I check? What's a good strategy to debug these situations? For completeness, here is how iptables are set on the host: iptables -F iptables -F -t nat iptables -F -t mangle iptables -X iptables -P INPUT DROP iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type echo-request -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o lxcbr0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 7002 -j DNAT --to 10.0.3.2:7000

    Read the article

  • OpenVPN + iptables / NAT routing

    - by Mikeage
    I'm trying to set up an OpenVPN VPN, which will carry some (but not all) traffic from the clients to the internet via the OpenVPN server. My OpenVPN server has a public IP on eth0, and is using tap0 to create a local network, 192.168.2.x. I have a client which connects from local IP 192.168.1.101 and gets VPN IP 192.168.2.3. On the server, I ran: iptables -A INPUT -i tap+ -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i tap+ -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.2.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE On the client, the default remains to route via 192.168.1.1. In order to point it to 192.168.2.1 for HTTP, I ran ip rule add fwmark 0x50 table 200 ip route add table 200 default via 192.168.2.1 iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -j MARK -p tcp --dport 80 --set-mark 80 Now, if I try accessing a website on the client (say, wget google.com), it just hangs there. On the server, I can see $ sudo tcpdump -n -i tap0 tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode listening on tap0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes 05:39:07.928358 IP 192.168.1.101.34941 > 74.125.67.100.80: S 4254520618:4254520618(0) win 5840 <mss 1334,sackOK,timestamp 558838 0,nop,wscale 5> 05:39:10.751921 IP 192.168.1.101.34941 > 74.125.67.100.80: S 4254520618:4254520618(0) win 5840 <mss 1334,sackOK,timestamp 559588 0,nop,wscale 5> Where 74.125.67.100 is the IP it gets for google.com . Why isn't the MASQUERADE working? More precisely, I see that the source showing up as 192.168.1.101 -- shouldn't there be something to indicate that it came from the VPN? Edit: Some routes [from the client] $ ip route show table main 192.168.2.0/24 dev tap0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.4 192.168.1.0/24 dev wlan0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.101 metric 2 169.254.0.0/16 dev wlan0 scope link metric 1000 default via 192.168.1.1 dev wlan0 proto static $ ip route show table 200 default via 192.168.2.1 dev tap0

    Read the article

  • iptables (DNAT)

    - by user1126425
    I have a host that acts as a gateway for other hosts. The configuration is such that eth0(192.168.1.3) is connected to internet via a router and eth1(172.16.2.50) is connected to internal network via switch. Given that, this host is also running a service that is bound to eth1 and serves the internal network. I want to extend this service to the outside world as well and was trying to manipulate iptables so that any request that comes to this host via eth0 and is directed to 192.168.1.3:80 is send to 172.16.2.50 and internet users can also make use of the service. Here are my iptable rules for setting up the host as gateway (and these work fine): sudo iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 172.16.2.0/16 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE sudo iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.1.0/24 -o eth1 -j MASQUERADE sudo iptables -A FORWARD -s 172.16.2.0/16 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT sudo iptables -A FORWARD -d 172.16.2.0/16 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -i eth0 -j ACCEPT And these are the rules that I am trying to add to the iptables to achieve my ends: sudo iptables -A INPUT -d 192.168.1.3 -p tcp -dport 80 -i eth0 -j ACCEPT sudo iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -d 192.168.1.3 -p tcp -dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 172.16.2.50:80 sudo iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -s 172.16.2.50 -p tcp -sport 80 -j SNAT --to-source 192.168.1.3:80 sudo iptables -A FORWARD -d 192.168.1.3 -p tcp -dport 80 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT When I do so, I get error like : "multiple -d flags not allowed" ... Can someone tell me how to resolve this error... and do the entries that I want to add will serve my purpose ? Thanks!

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

1 2 3 4 5 6 7  | Next Page >