On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Peter McAlpine <pe...@aoeu.ca> wrote:
> First off, thanks for all the suggestions from both of you. My email > filters were messed up causing me to miss your replies. > > On 19 November 2012 18:56, David DeSimone <f...@verio.net> wrote: > > If I understand the poster's problem, it is that there could be whole > > worlds of other networks behind $int_if, and he is not able to predict > > what IP addresses should be used to match that traffic; in fact, it is > > merely the fact that the traffic is arriving on $int_if that indicates > > it shoudl be NAT'd. > ^^ this is the problem exactly. > > Here's the config I have: > tun_if = "tap3" > ext_if = "xn0" > set skip on lo > nat on $ext_if from !$ext_if:network to any -> $ext_if > pass in on $tun_if from $tun_if:network to any keep state > pass out on $ext_if from any to any keep state > Maybe this can help, by writing the rules as follows. pass in on $tun_if from any to any tag TUNIFACE keep state pass in on $ext_if route-to ($tun_if $gateway_tun_if) from any to !self tag TUNIFACE keep state pass out on $tun_if reply-to ($ext_if $ext_if_gateway) from any to any tagged TUNIFACE keep state pass out on $ext_if reply-to ($tun_if $gateway_tun_if) from any to any tagged TUNIFACE keep state Then keep your other rules going... > I've attached a simple network diagram. If I ping google.com from a.b.c.d > the icmp traffic on 'server' goes out ext_if NAT'd, then comes back from > google.com, but then 'server' is trying to send it back out ext_if again > because 'server''s default route is the Internet. > > I can get the return traffic to go down the tunnel by manually adding a > route on 'server' to send traffic for a.b.c.0/24 down the tunnel, but then > I need to be aware of what all the networks behind 'client' are, and I > don't want to have to do that. > > Thanks again for all the ideas/input! > -Peter > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Kevin Wilcox <kevin.wil...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > On 19 November 2012 18:56, David DeSimone <f...@verio.net> wrote: > > > > > This doesn't seem right, because even traffic coming in via the > external > > > interface will have its target IP changed to be the router, even if > > > it is destined for some other place. Previously you were using "from > > > $int_if:network" to prevent this from happening to other traffic, but > > > without that restriction, every packet would be subject to NAT. > > > > My assumption was that the traffic coming in on the external interface > > is already destined for the outside IP of the router, unless he's > > doing some really funky stuff on both sides ;) > > > > It sounded like he wanted to NAT anything coming from the inside > > interface and then anything on the outside that wasn't return NAT > > traffic was supposed to terminate on the router, but I've been known > > to have clogged ears and awfully poor eyesight. > > > > kmw > > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-pf@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-pf-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > > -- Ermal _______________________________________________ freebsd-pf@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-pf-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
