On 08/20/13 12:41, Dan Lists wrote: > You might turn on logging and post the logs of what is being blocked. > Sometimes things are being blocked by rules you do not expect.
Thanks for the suggestion. I was seeing refusals from named and mistakenly interpreting them as ipfw issues. > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Gary Aitken <vagab...@blackfoot.net> wrote: > >> On 08/19/13 00:36, Jason Cox wrote: >>> Are you sure that your DNS requests are over TCP? DNS primarily uses UDP >> to >>> serve requests. TCP is used when the response data size exceeds 512 bytes >>> (I think), or for tasks such as zone transfers. I know a few resolver >>> implementations use TCP for all queries, but most I have used not. You >>> might want to add rules to allow UDP as well. >> >> There are identical rules included for udp: >> >> 21149 allow udp from any to 12.32.44.142 dst-port 53 in via tun0 keep-state >> 21169 allow udp from any to 12.32.36.65 dst-port 53 in via tun0 keep-state >> >> One of the requests which is being refused is a zone transfer request from >> a secondary which is a tcp request. Others are probably udp. >> >>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Gary Aitken <vagab...@blackfoot.net >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm having some weird ipfw behavior, or it seems weird to me, and am >>>> looking >>>> for an explaination and then a way out. >>>> >>>> ipfw list >>>> ... >>>> 21109 allow tcp from any to 12.32.44.142 dst-port 53 in via tun0 setup >>>> keep-state >>>> 21129 allow tcp from any to 12.32.36.65 dst-port 53 in via tun0 setup >>>> keep-state >>>> ... >>>> 65534 deny log logamount 5 ip from any to any >>>> >>>> tail -f messages >>>> Aug 18 23:33:06 nightmare named[914]: client 188.231.152.46#63877: error >>>> sending response: permission denied >>>> >>>> 12.32.36.65 is the addr of the internal interface (xl0) on the firewall >>>> and is the public dns server. >>>> 12.32.44.142 is the addr of the external interface (tun0) which is >> bridged >>>> on a >>>> dsl line. >>>> >>>> It appears that a dns request was allowed in, but the response was not >>>> allowed >>>> back out. It seems to me the above rules 21109 and 21129 should have >>>> allowed >>>> the request in and the response back out. >>>> >>>> It's possible a request could come in on 12.32.44.142, >>>> which is why 21109 is present; >>>> although I know I am getting failures to reply to refresh requests >>>> from a secondary addressed to 12.32.36.65 >>>> >>>> What am I missing? >>>> >>>> Is there a problem if the incoming rule is for tun0, >>>> which gets passed to named >>>> since 12.32.44.142 is on the physical machine running named, >>>> but named pumps its response out on 12.32.36.65, >>>> relying on routing to get it to the right place, >>>> and that fails to match the state tracking mechanism >>>> which started with 12.32.44.142? _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"