similar to: [Bug 554] Packet illegaly bypassing SNAT

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=554 ------- Additional Comments From kaber@trash.net 2007-03-15 02:53 MET ------- Most likely these packets are considered invalid by connection tracking and therefore not handled by NAT. Try this: iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -m state --state INVALID -j DROP -- Configure bugmail:

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=554 Summary: Packet illegaly bypassing SNAT Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.6.x Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P2 Component: NAT AssignedTo: laforge@netfilter.org ReportedBy:

Hi, Could not conceive an working set-up for an IPSEC VPN made with racoon/setkey on which I have one address on my side acting as an SNAT router for all traffic from my network to a network segment on the far side. my network --- my gateway ---------------------- remote network 10.0.0.0/24 - 10.0.0.1 (10.253.0.2) -- tunnel - 192.168.0.0/22 All traffic starts on my side, so if I can

Dear All, I have configured Cluster Suite with 2 servers Server 1 : 192.168.13.110 IP Address Server 2 : 192.168.13.179 IP Address Floating : 192.168.13.83 IP Address (Assumed by currently active server) I want all snmp packets going out through the active server to be stamped with floating IP So i have added a iptables rules as "iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p udp -s

Hi all, I''m using Shorewall since one year (1.4, then 2.0) I''m trying to migrate a linux firewall from iptables rules to shorewall. The firewall has three zones - net internet - loc1 lan - loc2 second lan I have a lot of rules like this, to SNAT the ip addresses of some computers on loc1 (192.168.16.0/24) when they connect to loc2 (10.0.0.0/8) iptables -v -t nat -I

Hi List, I am running into a problem where I have 2 interfaces bridged with and ip address assigned. I have another interface in which traffic has ingress traffic that needs to go out the bridged interface. I am trying unsuccessfully to SNAT the traffic leaving the bridge interface to its assigned address. # brctl show xbrdg0 bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces

Hi gurus, I need a way to do SNAT based on source mac before routing. This is because hosts attached to my gateway can have duplicate IP addresses, and I have to distinguish over them. I tried to use the nat tool that comes with iproute2, but this force to make a mapping only address to address, and I wanted to do it by mark (I also use iptables to do that). For example, I tried to

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1255 Bug ID: 1255 Summary: nftables SNAT is not working Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P5 Component: kernel Assignee: pablo at netfilter.org

Hello I will briefly draw the situation Router with one interface eth0 , to local network 10.123.0.0/16 on a local network ADSL modem with IP 10.123.10.11 I want to use 10.123.10.11 as a connection to internet . Because of that I have created default route "ip route add default via 10.123.10.11 dev eth0" I do not want my ADSL modem to do NATing , since it shows to be slow. I have

Hi all, i got the following configuration: * NET1: DSL Line with /28 network, let''s call it 10.1.0.0/28 * NET2: DSL Line with /28 network, let''s call it 10.2.0.0/28 * INTNET: Internal Network with productive servers and workstations, 192.168.1.0/24 Obvisiously the 10er networks are official networks but censored to protect my customer. The routerbox assigns on eth0 all

Sorry for the long descritpion of the problem, I''d like to know If I misunderstand something or if I meet an intrinsic limit of my setup. 217.58.51.162 HDSL eth1 - SRV_XP: 192.168.254.10 eth0: 192.168.254.1 -----+------------------+------- 81.121.243.250 ADSL eth3 - I want to allow incoming pptp request (port 1723) to be forwarded to srv_xp

Hi, I am unable to get my LAN masqueraded using SNAT with CentOS 5.3 and iptables. I have the following setup: eth0: connects to internet with static public IP 1.2.3.1 (obscured here for privacy) eth1: connects to DMZ with static public IP 1.2.3.2 (obscured here for privacy) eth2: connects to LAN with static private IP 192.168.0.1 Traffic to hosts in the DMZ/Internet through eth0/1 work fine.

Has anyone managed to combine bridged network model and SNAT? I have a machine that just ssh''s into other boxes and updates via rsync a copy of their filesystems. I figured I could stage a xen VM for this server with a private IP address and do SNAT and "routing" via the dom0 box, but I get a wierd "Performing cross-bridge DNAT requires IP forwarding to be enabled"

hi list, oh it''s not really a problem. Each time i fire shorewall, i run a custom iptables script: (for the openvpn machines to have route back from my bridge/fw - $SOURCEIP is the ip of my OpenVPN/Fw/bridge) iptables -A POSTROUTING -t nat -s 10.8.0.0/16 -j SNAT --to-source $SOURCEIP i wish to better integrate it within shorewall, so is there any config files that could achieve the

Hi, I configured a router box to use 2 providers, as described in the HOWTO. (Apendix 1) I want to use both links to reach a single smtp server. As I read in the kptd and in some old messages of this list, doing a SNAT in the postrouting chain comes _after_ the routing desision. So I guess the following lines I''m trying to use are wrong. (See Apendix 1) What can I do to have multiple

I''m being cast headlong into unfamiliar waters here, and being desperate for some air, thought I''d come here for some help. :) Anyway, my employer is going through some whiplash-inducing growth spurts, and as a result, the simple "Internet T-1 -> Linux Firewall/NAT -> LAN" setup just isn''t going to cut it anymore. First, we''re bringing in 2

More than one of our docs issues revolve around some confusion between "IP masquerading" and "SNAT" -- a confusion I might share, or if contagious, I may be catching. <g> I think of SNAT more or less as a special case of IP masquerading, applicable when, for example, the external interface has multiple IP''s and you choose to _explicitly_ set the address through

Hi ! I have setup a complete shorewall now with DMZ, and Private zones and masq, rules, port-forwarding etc. worx like expected. BUT I have a wish to use a couple of more public IP''s and relate those to inernal servers on the DMZ zone and i am now so confused about it. I have searched this archive for SNAT port allow Setup: 3 public adresses on the WAN nic. lets call them 80.80.80.80 -

Hello all, I have shorewall setup with 3 SNAT entries for external IP address''s to a single IP internal address. I am wondering how to limit access based on the source IP address. ex. EXT IP 1 access only to port 25 EXT IP 2 access only to port 443 EXT IP 3 access only to port 80 I have the SNAT setup correctly and I have 3 accept line in the rules file (25,80,443) but I can hit

I am having problems making RTSP connections to a Windows Streaming Media Server (ie "connecting to media...." but WMP never connects). There are no error messages in /var/log/messages. It was suggested to me that SNAT might perform better than MASQ in this respect. I edited my shorewall/masq file as such: eth0 eth1 12.34.56.78 or should it be? eth0 10.0.0.0/24