* a missing rule / incomplete routing
@ 2014-08-11 10:01 lejeczek
2014-08-11 11:54 ` Vigneswaran R
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: lejeczek @ 2014-08-11 10:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netfilter
dear experts
I'm looking for ideas/suggestion why the following does not work
there is a:
* box A - 172.17.166.199 -- then there is 172./8 net -- box
B - 172.25.12.101 (phys0), 192.168.2.100 (phys1) -- and one
more net behind 192.168.2.100
a 192.168.2.81 from behind box B can ping172.17.166.199
but not the other way around, box A cannot get to box B's
phys1 but it does get to phys0
I can control box A but have no control over the nets
between it and box B's phys0
I can control box B
I thought my route rules on box B are complete, box A is a
winbox
I though box B' firewall is ready
but I obviously miss something
there is no masquerading for phys0 nor phys1 one box B
any ideas/thoughts? greatly appreciated
thanks
P.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: a missing rule / incomplete routing
2014-08-11 10:01 a missing rule / incomplete routing lejeczek
@ 2014-08-11 11:54 ` Vigneswaran R
2014-08-13 10:21 ` [Bulk] " lejeczek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Vigneswaran R @ 2014-08-11 11:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lejeczek; +Cc: netfilter
On 08/11/2014 03:31 PM, lejeczek wrote:
> dear experts
>
> I'm looking for ideas/suggestion why the following does not work
>
> there is a:
> * box A - 172.17.166.199 -- then there is 172./8 net -- box B -
> 172.25.12.101 (phys0), 192.168.2.100 (phys1) -- and one more net
> behind 192.168.2.100
>
> a 192.168.2.81 from behind box B can ping172.17.166.199
> but not the other way around, box A cannot get to box B's phys1 but it
> does get to phys0
>
> I can control box A but have no control over the nets between it and
> box B's phys0
> I can control box B
>
> I thought my route rules on box B are complete, box A is a winbox
> I though box B' firewall is ready
> but I obviously miss something
>
> there is no masquerading for phys0 nor phys1 one box B
It looks like the firewall (FORWARD chain) in B is not allowing NEW
connections from phys0 to phys1; only allowing ESTABLISHED connections,
which made the ICMP reply packets through.
Regards,
Vignesh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bulk] Re: a missing rule / incomplete routing
2014-08-11 11:54 ` Vigneswaran R
@ 2014-08-13 10:21 ` lejeczek
2014-08-13 11:12 ` Vigneswaran R
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: lejeczek @ 2014-08-13 10:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vigneswaran R; +Cc: netfilter
I have had:
-A FORWARD -i em1 -o em2 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT
-A FORWARD -i em2 -o em1 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT
besides, also usual
-A FORWARD -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
-A FORWARD -p icmp -j ACCEPT
one strange thing is that when I tracepath on box B I see
traffic (to box A 172.17.167.x) wants to go out via
em3(another psyh interface)
if it might be routing, then
I have 3 man made routing tables, one for each interface
private 192.xxxx
internal 172.xxx
external a public IP
I've left out private (empty, no rules no routes) for I
thought kernel would take care of it,
which it does (well, to certain extent) eg. 172.25.12.x net
get to box B's 192.168.2.100 and behind (this is internal
table route rules)
but eg. 172.17.x.x which essentially goes through the same
phys0 cannot get to box B's 192.168.2.100 (but can to box
B's 172.25.12.101)
there are router(s) between 172.x.x.x (not mine) but then as
above they all can get to box B's psyh0 172.25.12.101
it's all a bit weird to me
On 11/08/14 12:54, Vigneswaran R wrote:
> On 08/11/2014 03:31 PM, lejeczek wrote:
>> dear experts
>>
>> I'm looking for ideas/suggestion why the following does
>> not work
>>
>> there is a:
>> * box A - 172.17.166.199 -- then there is 172./8 net --
>> box B - 172.25.12.101 (phys0), 192.168.2.100 (phys1) --
>> and one more net behind 192.168.2.100
>>
>> a 192.168.2.81 from behind box B can ping172.17.166.199
>> but not the other way around, box A cannot get to box B's
>> phys1 but it does get to phys0
>>
>> I can control box A but have no control over the nets
>> between it and box B's phys0
>> I can control box B
>>
>> I thought my route rules on box B are complete, box A is
>> a winbox
>> I though box B' firewall is ready
>> but I obviously miss something
>>
>> there is no masquerading for phys0 nor phys1 one box B
>
> It looks like the firewall (FORWARD chain) in B is not
> allowing NEW connections from phys0 to phys1; only
> allowing ESTABLISHED connections, which made the ICMP
> reply packets through.
>
>
> Regards,
> Vignesh
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bulk] Re: a missing rule / incomplete routing
2014-08-13 10:21 ` [Bulk] " lejeczek
@ 2014-08-13 11:12 ` Vigneswaran R
2014-08-15 11:29 ` lejeczek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Vigneswaran R @ 2014-08-13 11:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lejeczek; +Cc: netfilter
When you say "a 192.168.2.81 from behind box B can ping172.17.166.199"
(in your first mail), do you mean both the following happen?
1) the icmp request from 192.168.2.81 is able to reach 172.17.166.199, and
2) the icmp reply from 172.17.166.199 is able to reach 192.168.2.81
In case, the 2nd is not happening, most probably the routers in between
(which are not in your control) not having route for 192.168.x.x
network. In that case, you may have to create a tunnel (or use VPN)
between Box A and Box B to connect to 192.168.x.x network.
Regards,
Vignesh
On 08/13/2014 03:51 PM, lejeczek wrote:
> I have had:
> -A FORWARD -i em1 -o em2 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT
> -A FORWARD -i em2 -o em1 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT
> besides, also usual
> -A FORWARD -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
> -A FORWARD -p icmp -j ACCEPT
>
> one strange thing is that when I tracepath on box B I see traffic (to
> box A 172.17.167.x) wants to go out via em3(another psyh interface)
>
> if it might be routing, then
> I have 3 man made routing tables, one for each interface
> private 192.xxxx
> internal 172.xxx
> external a public IP
>
> I've left out private (empty, no rules no routes) for I thought kernel
> would take care of it,
> which it does (well, to certain extent) eg. 172.25.12.x net get to box
> B's 192.168.2.100 and behind (this is internal table route rules)
> but eg. 172.17.x.x which essentially goes through the same phys0
> cannot get to box B's 192.168.2.100 (but can to box B's 172.25.12.101)
>
> there are router(s) between 172.x.x.x (not mine) but then as above
> they all can get to box B's psyh0 172.25.12.101
>
> it's all a bit weird to me
>
>
> On 11/08/14 12:54, Vigneswaran R wrote:
>> On 08/11/2014 03:31 PM, lejeczek wrote:
>>> dear experts
>>>
>>> I'm looking for ideas/suggestion why the following does not work
>>>
>>> there is a:
>>> * box A - 172.17.166.199 -- then there is 172./8 net -- box B -
>>> 172.25.12.101 (phys0), 192.168.2.100 (phys1) -- and one more net
>>> behind 192.168.2.100
>>>
>>> a 192.168.2.81 from behind box B can ping172.17.166.199
>>> but not the other way around, box A cannot get to box B's phys1 but
>>> it does get to phys0
>>>
>>> I can control box A but have no control over the nets between it and
>>> box B's phys0
>>> I can control box B
>>>
>>> I thought my route rules on box B are complete, box A is a winbox
>>> I though box B' firewall is ready
>>> but I obviously miss something
>>>
>>> there is no masquerading for phys0 nor phys1 one box B
>>
>> It looks like the firewall (FORWARD chain) in B is not allowing NEW
>> connections from phys0 to phys1; only allowing ESTABLISHED
>> connections, which made the ICMP reply packets through.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Vignesh
>>
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bulk] Re: a missing rule / incomplete routing
2014-08-13 11:12 ` Vigneswaran R
@ 2014-08-15 11:29 ` lejeczek
2014-08-18 3:31 ` Vigneswaran R
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: lejeczek @ 2014-08-15 11:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netfilter
yes, 172.17.166.199 replies,
to sort of narrow it down a bit
I on box B do
ping -I 172.25.12.101 172.17.166.199 = replies
ping -I 192.168.2.100 172.17.166.199 = does not
on a box behind B's 192.168.2.65, eg on 192.168.2.81 (winbox)
ping 172.17.167.41 = replies
feels like B's local routing, but where exactly?? no idea I have
my routing tables:
main:
default dev em3 scope link
$publicNet.0/24 dev em3 proto kernel scope link src
$publicNet.75
172.25.12.0/24 dev em2 proto kernel scope link src
172.25.12.203
192.168.2.0/24 dev em1 proto kernel scope link src
192.168.2.100
192.168.2.10 dev ppp0 proto kernel scope link src
192.168.2.100
192.168.2.64/27 dev br0 proto kernel scope link src
192.168.2.65
private:
internal:
172.0.0.0/8 dev em2 scope link
192.168.4.0/24 via 172.25.12.215 dev em2
external:
default via $publicNet.62 dev em3
$publicNet.0/24 dev em3 scope link
172.25.12.214 dev em2 scope link
192.168.2.64/27 dev br0 scope link
0: from all lookup local
32763: from 172.0.0.0/8 lookup internal
32764: from $publicNet.0/24 lookup external
32766: from all lookup main
32767: from all lookup default
interfaces:
em1 192.168.2.100
em2 172.25.12.203
em3 $publicIP
br0 192.168.2.65
geee...
On 13/08/14 12:12, Vigneswaran R wrote:
> When you say "a 192.168.2.81 from behind box B can
> ping172.17.166.199" (in your first mail), do you mean both
> the following happen?
>
> 1) the icmp request from 192.168.2.81 is able to reach
> 172.17.166.199, and
> 2) the icmp reply from 172.17.166.199 is able to reach
> 192.168.2.81
>
> In case, the 2nd is not happening, most probably the
> routers in between (which are not in your control) not
> having route for 192.168.x.x network. In that case, you
> may have to create a tunnel (or use VPN) between Box A and
> Box B to connect to 192.168.x.x network.
>
>
> Regards,
> Vignesh
>
> On 08/13/2014 03:51 PM, lejeczek wrote:
>> I have had:
>> -A FORWARD -i em1 -o em2 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT
>> -A FORWARD -i em2 -o em1 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT
>> besides, also usual
>> -A FORWARD -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
>> -A FORWARD -p icmp -j ACCEPT
>>
>> one strange thing is that when I tracepath on box B I see
>> traffic (to box A 172.17.167.x) wants to go out via
>> em3(another psyh interface)
>>
>> if it might be routing, then
>> I have 3 man made routing tables, one for each interface
>> private 192.xxxx
>> internal 172.xxx
>> external a public IP
>>
>> I've left out private (empty, no rules no routes) for I
>> thought kernel would take care of it,
>> which it does (well, to certain extent) eg. 172.25.12.x
>> net get to box B's 192.168.2.100 and behind (this is
>> internal table route rules)
>> but eg. 172.17.x.x which essentially goes through the
>> same phys0 cannot get to box B's 192.168.2.100 (but can
>> to box B's 172.25.12.101)
>>
>> there are router(s) between 172.x.x.x (not mine) but then
>> as above they all can get to box B's psyh0 172.25.12.101
>>
>> it's all a bit weird to me
>>
>>
>> On 11/08/14 12:54, Vigneswaran R wrote:
>>> On 08/11/2014 03:31 PM, lejeczek wrote:
>>>> dear experts
>>>>
>>>> I'm looking for ideas/suggestion why the following does
>>>> not work
>>>>
>>>> there is a:
>>>> * box A - 172.17.166.199 -- then there is 172./8 net
>>>> -- box B - 172.25.12.101 (phys0), 192.168.2.100 (phys1)
>>>> -- and one more net behind 192.168.2.100
>>>>
>>>> a 192.168.2.81 from behind box B can ping172.17.166.199
>>>> but not the other way around, box A cannot get to box
>>>> B's phys1 but it does get to phys0
>>>>
>>>> I can control box A but have no control over the nets
>>>> between it and box B's phys0
>>>> I can control box B
>>>>
>>>> I thought my route rules on box B are complete, box A
>>>> is a winbox
>>>> I though box B' firewall is ready
>>>> but I obviously miss something
>>>>
>>>> there is no masquerading for phys0 nor phys1 one box B
>>>
>>> It looks like the firewall (FORWARD chain) in B is not
>>> allowing NEW connections from phys0 to phys1; only
>>> allowing ESTABLISHED connections, which made the ICMP
>>> reply packets through.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Vignesh
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> netfilter" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at
> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bulk] Re: a missing rule / incomplete routing
2014-08-15 11:29 ` lejeczek
@ 2014-08-18 3:31 ` Vigneswaran R
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Vigneswaran R @ 2014-08-18 3:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lejeczek; +Cc: netfilter
On 08/15/2014 04:59 PM, lejeczek wrote:
> yes, 172.17.166.199 replies,
> to sort of narrow it down a bit
> I on box B do
> ping -I 172.25.12.101 172.17.166.199 = replies
> ping -I 192.168.2.100 172.17.166.199 = does not
>
> on a box behind B's 192.168.2.65, eg on 192.168.2.81 (winbox)
> ping 172.17.167.41 = replies
>
> feels like B's local routing, but where exactly?? no idea I have
You can try the following to debug the problem:
While the "ping -I 192.168.2.100 172.17.166.199" is in progress, please
run tcpdump on Box A (172.17.166.199) and observe.
1. If you are seeing the ICMP request with source IP 192.168.2.100,
however no ICMP reply seen on Box A, then either Box A doesn't have
route to 192.168.2.100, or Box A's iptables may block the reply.
2. If you are seeing both ICMP request and reply on Box A, but the reply
is not reaching Box B, most probably the intermediate machines don't
have route to 192.168.2.0/24.
In that case, one possible solution would be creating tunnel between Box
A and Box B to reach 192.168.2.0/24 network.
> my routing tables:
>
> main:
>
> default dev em3 scope link
> $publicNet.0/24 dev em3 proto kernel scope link src $publicNet.75
> 172.25.12.0/24 dev em2 proto kernel scope link src 172.25.12.203
> 192.168.2.0/24 dev em1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.100
> 192.168.2.10 dev ppp0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.100
> 192.168.2.64/27 dev br0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.65
>
> private:
>
>
> internal:
>
> 172.0.0.0/8 dev em2 scope link
> 192.168.4.0/24 via 172.25.12.215 dev em2
>
> external:
>
> default via $publicNet.62 dev em3
> $publicNet.0/24 dev em3 scope link
> 172.25.12.214 dev em2 scope link
> 192.168.2.64/27 dev br0 scope link
>
> 0: from all lookup local
> 32763: from 172.0.0.0/8 lookup internal
> 32764: from $publicNet.0/24 lookup external
> 32766: from all lookup main
> 32767: from all lookup default
>
> interfaces:
> em1 192.168.2.100
> em2 172.25.12.203
> em3 $publicIP
> br0 192.168.2.65
>
> geee...
I couldn't find anything wrong/inconsistent in the above routing
configuration.
Regards,
Vignesh
>
> On 13/08/14 12:12, Vigneswaran R wrote:
>> When you say "a 192.168.2.81 from behind box B can
>> ping172.17.166.199" (in your first mail), do you mean both the
>> following happen?
>>
>> 1) the icmp request from 192.168.2.81 is able to reach
>> 172.17.166.199, and
>> 2) the icmp reply from 172.17.166.199 is able to reach 192.168.2.81
>>
>> In case, the 2nd is not happening, most probably the routers in
>> between (which are not in your control) not having route for
>> 192.168.x.x network. In that case, you may have to create a tunnel
>> (or use VPN) between Box A and Box B to connect to 192.168.x.x network.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Vignesh
>>
>> On 08/13/2014 03:51 PM, lejeczek wrote:
>>> I have had:
>>> -A FORWARD -i em1 -o em2 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT
>>> -A FORWARD -i em2 -o em1 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT
>>> besides, also usual
>>> -A FORWARD -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
>>> -A FORWARD -p icmp -j ACCEPT
>>>
>>> one strange thing is that when I tracepath on box B I see traffic
>>> (to box A 172.17.167.x) wants to go out via em3(another psyh interface)
>>>
>>> if it might be routing, then
>>> I have 3 man made routing tables, one for each interface
>>> private 192.xxxx
>>> internal 172.xxx
>>> external a public IP
>>>
>>> I've left out private (empty, no rules no routes) for I thought
>>> kernel would take care of it,
>>> which it does (well, to certain extent) eg. 172.25.12.x net get to
>>> box B's 192.168.2.100 and behind (this is internal table route rules)
>>> but eg. 172.17.x.x which essentially goes through the same phys0
>>> cannot get to box B's 192.168.2.100 (but can to box B's 172.25.12.101)
>>>
>>> there are router(s) between 172.x.x.x (not mine) but then as above
>>> they all can get to box B's psyh0 172.25.12.101
>>>
>>> it's all a bit weird to me
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/08/14 12:54, Vigneswaran R wrote:
>>>> On 08/11/2014 03:31 PM, lejeczek wrote:
>>>>> dear experts
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm looking for ideas/suggestion why the following does not work
>>>>>
>>>>> there is a:
>>>>> * box A - 172.17.166.199 -- then there is 172./8 net -- box B -
>>>>> 172.25.12.101 (phys0), 192.168.2.100 (phys1) -- and one more net
>>>>> behind 192.168.2.100
>>>>>
>>>>> a 192.168.2.81 from behind box B can ping172.17.166.199
>>>>> but not the other way around, box A cannot get to box B's phys1
>>>>> but it does get to phys0
>>>>>
>>>>> I can control box A but have no control over the nets between it
>>>>> and box B's phys0
>>>>> I can control box B
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought my route rules on box B are complete, box A is a winbox
>>>>> I though box B' firewall is ready
>>>>> but I obviously miss something
>>>>>
>>>>> there is no masquerading for phys0 nor phys1 one box B
>>>>
>>>> It looks like the firewall (FORWARD chain) in B is not allowing
>>>> NEW connections from phys0 to phys1; only allowing ESTABLISHED
>>>> connections, which made the ICMP reply packets through.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Vignesh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-08-18 3:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-08-11 10:01 a missing rule / incomplete routing lejeczek
2014-08-11 11:54 ` Vigneswaran R
2014-08-13 10:21 ` [Bulk] " lejeczek
2014-08-13 11:12 ` Vigneswaran R
2014-08-15 11:29 ` lejeczek
2014-08-18 3:31 ` Vigneswaran R
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.