I note, no answers yet..
I plan on spending some time tomorrow trying to understand this issue.
just letting you know..
On 21/11/2015 10:06 AM, Nathan Aherne wrote:
I had a bit of a think about how to describe what I am trying to
achieve.
I am treating each jail likes its own little "virtual machine”. The
jail provides certain services, using things like nginx or nodejs,
php-fpm, mysql or postgresql. The jails can control connections to
themselves by configuring the firewall ports that are opened on the
IP their IP (10.0.0.0/16 or a public IP). I know the jails have no
firewall of their own, the firewall is configured from the host.
I want each jail or “virtual machine” to be able to communicate with
one another and the wider internet. When a jail does a DNS query for
another App jail, it may get a public IP on its own Host (or it may
get another host) and it has no issues being able to communicate
with another jail on the same host.
At the moment all of the above is working perfectly except for jail
to jail communication on the same host (when the communication is
not directly between 10.0.0.0/16 IP addresses).
Regards,
Nathan
On 21 Nov 2015, at 9:12 am, Nathan Aherne <nat...@reddog.com.au
<mailto:nat...@reddog.com.au>> wrote:
I am not exactly sure how to draw the setup so it doesn’t confuse
the situation. The setup is extremely simple (I am not running
vimage), jails running on the 10.0.0.0/16 (cloned lo1 interface)
network or with public IPs. The jails with private IPs are the HTTP
app jails. The Host runs a HTTP Proxy (nginx) and forwards traffic
to each HTTP App jail based on the URL it receives. The jails with
public IPs are things like database jails which cannot be proxied
by the Host.
I can happily communicate with any jail from my laptop (externally)
but when I want one jail to communicate with another jail (for
example an App Jail communicating with the database jail) the
traffic shows as backwards (destination:port -> source:port) in the
IPFW logs (tshark shows the traffic correctly source:port ->
destination:port). The jail to jail traffic tries to go over the
lo1 interface (backwards) and is blocked. Below is some IPFW logs
of an App jail (10.0.0.25) communicating with the database jail
(aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd)
IPFW logs. The lines labelled UNKNOWN is the check-state rule
(everything is labelled UNKNOWN even if it is KNOWN traffic)
Nov 21 08:49:07 host5 kernel: ipfw: 101 UNKNOWN TCP
eee.fff.gg.hhh:5432 10.0.0.25:42957 out via lo1
Nov 21 08:49:07 host5 kernel: ipfw: 65501 Deny TCP
eee.fff.gg.hhh:5432 10.0.0.25:42957 out via lo1
Nov 21 08:49:10 host5 kernel: ipfw: 101 UNKNOWN TCP
eee.fff.gg.hhh:5432 10.0.0.25:42957 out via lo1
Nov 21 08:49:10 host5 kernel: ipfw: 65501 Deny TCP
eee.fff.gg.hhh:5432 10.0.0.25:42957 out via lo1
Nov 21 08:49:13 host5 kernel: ipfw: 101 UNKNOWN TCP
eee.fff.gg.hhh:5432 10.0.0.25:42957 out via lo1
Nov 21 08:49:13 host5 kernel: ipfw: 65501 Deny TCP
eee.fff.gg.hhh:5432 10.0.0.25:42957 out via lo1
Nov 21 08:49:16 host5 kernel: ipfw: 101 UNKNOWN TCP
eee.fff.gg.hhh:5432 10.0.0.25:42957 out via lo1
Nov 21 08:49:16 host5 kernel: ipfw: 65501 Deny TCP
eee.fff.gg.hhh:5432 10.0.0.25:42957 out via lo1
tshark output (loopback and wan interface capture for port 5432)
Capturing on 'Loopback' and 'bce0'
1 0.000000 10.0.0.25 -> eee.fff.gg.hhh TCP 64 42957→5432 [SYN]
Seq=0 Win=65535 Len=0 MSS=16344 WS=64 SACK_PERM=1 TSval=142885525
TSecr=0
2 3.013905 10.0.0.25 -> eee.fff.gg.hhh TCP 64 [TCP
Retransmission] 42957→5432 [SYN] Seq=0 Win=65535 Len=0 MSS=16344
WS=64 SACK_PERM=1 TSval=142888539 TSecr=0
3 6.241658 10.0.0.25 -> eee.fff.gg.hhh TCP 64 [TCP
Retransmission] 42957→5432 [SYN] Seq=0 Win=65535 Len=0 MSS=16344
WS=64 SACK_PERM=1 TSval=142891767 TSecr=0
4 9.451516 10.0.0.25 -> eee.fff.gg.hhh TCP 64 [TCP
Retransmission] 42957→5432 [SYN] Seq=0 Win=65535 Len=0 MSS=16344
WS=64 SACK_PERM=1 TSval=142894976 TSecr=0
5 12.654656 10.0.0.25 -> eee.fff.gg.hhh TCP 64 [TCP
Retransmission] 42957→5432 [SYN] Seq=0 Win=65535 Len=0 MSS=16344
WS=64 SACK_PERM=1 TSval=142898180 TSecr=0
6 15.863900 10.0.0.25 -> eee.fff.gg.hhh TCP 64 [TCP
Retransmission] 42957→5432 [SYN] Seq=0 Win=65535 Len=0 MSS=16344
WS=64 SACK_PERM=1 TSval=142901389 TSecr=0
7 22.076655 10.0.0.25 -> eee.fff.gg.hhh TCP 64 [TCP
Retransmission] 42957→5432 [SYN] Seq=0 Win=65535 Len=0 MSS=16344
WS=64 SACK_PERM=1 TSval=142907602 TSecr=0
If so, what sort of routing is setup on both host and jails?
Routing is what would be added by default (whatever the host system
adds when adding an IP), there is no custom routing. I have
wondered if I need to modify the routing table to get this to work.
Below is the output of netstat -rn
www.xxx.yy <http://www.xxx.yy/>.zzz is the gateway address
eee.fff.gg.hhh is the database jail public IP
aaa.bbb.cc.ddd is the public IP for NAT
lll.mmm.nn.ooo is the Hosts public IP
Routing tables
Internet:
Destination Gateway Flags Netif Expire
default www.xxx.yy <http://www.xxx.yy/>.zzz UGS bce0
10.0.0.1 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.2 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.3 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.4 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.5 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.6 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.7 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.8 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.9 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.10 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.11 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.12 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.13 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.14 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.15 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.16 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.17 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.18 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.19 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.20 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.21 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.22 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.23 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.24 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.25 link#6 UH lo1
10.0.0.26 link#6 UH lo1
www.xxx.yy.zzz/25 <http://www.xxx.yy.zzz/25> link#1 U
bce0
eee.fff.gg.hhh link#1 UHS lo0
eee.fff.gg.hhh/32 link#1 U bce0
aaa.bbb.cc <http://aaa.bbb.cc/>.ddd link#1 UHS lo0
aaa.bbb.cc.ddd/32 link#1 U bce0
lll.mmm.nn.ooo link#1 UHS lo0
127.0.0.1 link#5 UH lo0
Internet6:
Destination Gateway Flags
Netif Expire
::/96 ::1 UGRS lo0
::1 link#5 UH lo0
::ffff:0.0.0.0/96 ::1 UGRS
lo0
fe80::/10 ::1 UGRS lo0
fe80::%lo0/64 link#5 U lo0
fe80::1%lo0 link#5 UHS lo0
ff01::%lo0/32 ::1 U lo0
ff02::/16 ::1 UGRS lo0
ff02::%lo0/32 ::1 U lo0
Anything like ?
http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB24639&actp=search
Yes just like that.
Regards,
Nathan
On 19 Nov 2015, at 2:46 am, Ian Smith <smi...@nimnet.asn.au
<mailto:smi...@nimnet.asn.au>> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:17:29 +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 11/18/15 8:40 AM, Nathan Aherne wrote:
For some reason hairpin (loopback nat or nat reflection) does
not seem to
be working, which is why I chose IPFW in the first place.
it would be good to see a diagram of what this actually means.
Anything like ?
http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB24639&actp=search
Was this so one jail can only access service/s provided by other
jail/s,
both/all with internal NAT'd addresses, by using only the public
address
and port of the 'router', which IIRC this is a single system with
jails?
If so, what sort of routing is setup on both host and jails?
(blindfolded, no idea where I've pinned the donkey's tail :)
cheers, Ian
_______________________________________________
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"
