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).
this is pretty much exactly when vimage/vnet jails could be used to great affect. Is there a reason you are not doing that? Each jail has it's own routing tables, addresses and (virtual) interfaces.

here's how I'd do it with vimage

                                       +--------------+
                       +---------------+              | servers
                       |               +--------------+
                       |
                       |               +--------------+
                       |      +--------+              |
                       |      |        +--------------+
                       |      |
     +--------+     +--+------+----+
     | iface  |     | bridge       |
     |        +-----+              |
     +--------+     +----+---------+
                         |
                         |
                         |
                         |
                         |
                         |
+------------------------+---------------------+
|                                              |
|                                              |
|       NAT jail router                        |
|                                              |
|                                              |
+-------+--------+--------+-------+------------+
        |        |        |       |
     +--+--+  +--+--+  +--+--+ +--+--+
     |     |  |     |  |     | |     |
     |     |  |     |  |     | |     |
     |     |  |     |  |     | |     |    jails
     |     |  |     |  |     | |     |
     +-----+  +-----+  +-----+ +-----+



however the hairpin idea might still be useful even in that scenario if they don't know about each other's 'local' addresses, but do NAT'd machines need to talk to each other by externeal addresses?

i Nathan
On 21 Nov 2015, at 9:12 am, Nathan Aherne <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 
<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 
<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"



_______________________________________________
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