On 5/5/17 1:48 am, Dr. Rolf Jansen wrote:
Resolving this with ipfw/NAT may easily become quite complicated, if not 
impossible if you want to run a stateful nat'ting firewall, which is usually 
the better choice.

IMHO a DNS based solution is much more effective.

On my gateway I have running the caching DNS resolver Unbound. Now let's 
assume, the second level domain name in question is example.com, and your web 
server would be accessed by www.example.com, while other services, e.g. mail 
are served from other sites on the internet.

I believe this is a much cleaner solution thanusing double NAT.
(see also my solution for if the server is also freebsd)
even though we have a nice set of new IPFW capabilities that can do this, I still think double nat is an over complication of the system.


In unbound.conf you would place two additional lines before any forwarding 
directive:

local-zone: "example.com" transparent
local-data: "www.example.com" A 192.168.1.1

All the clients on the LAN should use the DNS service on the gateway. In the 
first place Unbound does higher level DNS lookups locally, however, the 
transparent attribute lets it fall through to its normal recursive or 
forwarding behaviour in case a given domain could not be resolved locally. For 
example, the query of www.example.com would return 192.168.1.1 and the query 
for mail.example.com would be passed either to the forwarder or resolved 
recursively from the internet.

By this way, local clients would directly access your web server from the 
inside, no NAT is needed.

IMHO, a DNS server on the gateway got more advantages. It can be used to block 
access to fraudulent or otherwise useless services on the internet for the 
whole LAN.

Best regards

Rolf


Am 04.05.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Karl Denninger <k...@denninger.net>:

Consider the following network configuration.


Internet ------- Gateway/Firewall ---------- Inside network (including a
web host)
            70.16.10.1/28     192.168.0.0/24

The address of the outside is FICTIONAL, by the way.

For policy reasons I do NOT want the gateway machine to actually have
the host on it.  There may be a number of things running on there but
for the instant moment let's assume a standard pedestrian web host on
port 80.

I have DNS pointing at "webhost.domain" @ 70.16.10.1.

I have NAT on the gateway (NAT internal to the kernel), and a "hole
punch" in there with redirect_port tcp 192.168.1.1:80 70.16.10.1:80 as
pat of the nat configuration statement.

This works fine for anyone on the outside.  HOWEVER, anyone on the
INTERNAL network cannot see the host.

My NAT configuration looks like this:

#
# Now divert all inbound packets that should go through NAT. Since this
is NAT
# it can only match a packet that previously was NATted on the way out.
#
        ${fwcmd} add 6000 nat 100 ip4 from any to me recv ${oif}
#
# Check stateful rules; we want to go there directly if there is a match
#
        ${fwcmd} add 7000 check-state
#
# Now pick up all *outbound* packets that originated from an inside address
# and put them through NAT.  We then have
# a packet with a local source address and we can allow it to be sent.
# Therefore, if the packet is outbound let it pass and be done with it.
#
        ${fwcmd} add 8000 nat 100 ip4 from 192.168.0.0/16 to any xmit ${oif}
   ${fwcmd} add 8001 nat 100 ip4 from 192.168.0.0/16 to ${oip}
        ${fwcmd} add 8009 deny log ip4 from 192.168.0.0/16 to any xmit
${oif}
        ${fwcmd} add 8010 pass ip4 from ${onet} to any xmit ${oif}

Without the ">>" line I get nothing; the packets get to the gateway and
disappear.

With the ">>" line I DO get the packets re-emitted on the internal
interface HOWEVER there is no translation to the internal interface IP
on the gateway box.  So what I see on the internal box is this:

11:19:16.369634 IP 192.168.10.40.60924 > 192.168.10.100.11443: Flags
[S], seq 292171178, win 8192, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale
8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
11:19:16.369662 IP 192.168.10.100.11443 > 192.168.10.40.60924: Flags
[S.], seq 3088872007, ack 292171179, win 65535, options [mss
1460,nop,wscale 6,sackOK,eol], length 0

Which won't work because the internal box got and sent this:

11:19:16.369337 IP 192.168.10.40.60924 > 70.169.168.7.11443: Flags [S],
seq 292171178, win 8192, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale 8,nop,nop,sackOK],
length 0
11:19:16.369433 IP 192.168.10.40.60925 > 70.169.168.7.11443: Flags [S],
seq 2666765817, win 8192, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale
8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
11:19:16.369502 IP 192.168.10.40.60924 > 192.168.10.100.11443: Flags
[S], seq 292171178, win 8192, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale
8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
11:19:16.369511 IP 192.168.10.40.60925 > 192.168.10.100.11443: Flags
[S], seq 2666765817, win 8192, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale
8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0

But since the gateway emitted the packet back on the wire *without*
remapping the source address (to itself) it doesn't match on the client
box 'cause there's no way back for it.

There has to be a solution to this somewhere and I'm obviously missing
it..... :)

--
Karl Denninger
k...@denninger.net <mailto:k...@denninger.net>
/The Market Ticker/
/[S/MIME encrypted email preferred]/
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ipfw-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


_______________________________________________
freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ipfw-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to