Re: [Openvpn-users] Re: [LARTC] UDP port 1194 marking/routing problem
Hi John E. Peterson, Yes. My stupid typo. On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:08:20 -0400, "John E. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Did you mean POSTROUTING to PREROUTING? That looked wierd. > > - Original Message - > From: "Wang Jian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Remus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 10:03 AM > Subject: [Openvpn-users] Re: [LARTC] UDP port 1194 marking/routing problem > > > > Hi Remus, > > > > > > On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 14:48:03 +0100, "Remus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Wang, > >> > >> That solution does not suite me: > >> >ip route add default via $DEFAULTGW dev eth1 > >> >ip route add xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/32 via $ANOTHERGW dev eth0 > >> Because only UPD 1194 has to be routed via eth0 to OpenVPN server IP, > >> everything else > >> to same Ip has to go via eth1. > > > > I see. So you need policy routing. Change your netfilter rule from > > POSTROUTING to POSTROUTING. > > > > > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message - > >> From: "Wang Jian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: "Remus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 1:38 PM > >> Subject: Re: [Openvpn-users] Re: [LARTC] UDP port 1194 marking/routing > >> problem > >> > >> > >> > Hi Remus, > >> > > >> > I means: don't use policy routing, because you can use much simpler > >> > solution. > >> > > >> > Example: > >> > > >> > ip route add default via $DEFAULTGW dev eth1 > >> > ip route add xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/32 via $ANOTHERGW dev eth0 > >> > > >> > The second, send all your traffic to IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx via eth0. When > >> > your box acts as your intranet's gateway, you can SNAT or MASQUERADE on > >> > eth0, like > >> > > >> > iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE. > >> > > >> > > >> > For you openvpn configuration, you can either bind openvpn to eth0's > >> > ip, > >> > or let system chooose the IP, in most case the output interface. > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:54:53 +0100, "Remus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi Wang, > >> >> > >> >> We specialy got two Internet connections, one is only for the OpenVPN > >> >> (it > >> >> is > >> >> heavily used) and second for everthing else. > >> >> I will give a try to PREROUTING stuff right away. > >> >> > >> >> What do mean : But I don't think you need to use MARK to do policy > >> >> routing. > >> >> It's a little overkill. > >> >> > >> >> Do you another suggestion than iptables/MARK? > >> >> > >> >> Regards > >> >> > >> >> Remus > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> - Original Message - > >> >> From: "Wang Jian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> To: > >> >> Cc: "Remus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 12:23 PM > >> >> Subject: [Openvpn-users] Re: [LARTC] UDP port 1194 marking/routing > >> >> problem > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Hi Remus, > >> >> > > >> >> > It seems that > >> >> > > >> >> > iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -p udp --dport 1194 -j > >> >> > MARK \ > >> >> >--set-mark 0x990 > >> >> > > >> >> > will not take effect. (didn't you typo -A as -D?) > >> >> > > >> >> > POSTROUTING is looked up after routing decision is made. Because the > >> >> > default route is dev eth1, the output device is eth1, -o eth0 will > >> >> > not > >> >> > match. > >> >> > > >> >> > You should use > >> >> > > >> >> > iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p udp --destination >> >> > \ > >>
Re: [LARTC] UDP port 1194 marking/routing problem
Hi Remus, On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 14:48:03 +0100, "Remus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wang, > > That solution does not suite me: > >ip route add default via $DEFAULTGW dev eth1 > >ip route add xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/32 via $ANOTHERGW dev eth0 > Because only UPD 1194 has to be routed via eth0 to OpenVPN server IP, > everything else > to same Ip has to go via eth1. I see. So you need policy routing. Change your netfilter rule from POSTROUTING to POSTROUTING. > > > - Original Message - > From: "Wang Jian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Remus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 1:38 PM > Subject: Re: [Openvpn-users] Re: [LARTC] UDP port 1194 marking/routing > problem > > > > Hi Remus, > > > > I means: don't use policy routing, because you can use much simpler > > solution. > > > > Example: > > > > ip route add default via $DEFAULTGW dev eth1 > > ip route add xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/32 via $ANOTHERGW dev eth0 > > > > The second, send all your traffic to IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx via eth0. When > > your box acts as your intranet's gateway, you can SNAT or MASQUERADE on > > eth0, like > > > > iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE. > > > > > > For you openvpn configuration, you can either bind openvpn to eth0's ip, > > or let system chooose the IP, in most case the output interface. > > > > > > On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:54:53 +0100, "Remus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Hi Wang, > >> > >> We specialy got two Internet connections, one is only for the OpenVPN (it > >> is > >> heavily used) and second for everthing else. > >> I will give a try to PREROUTING stuff right away. > >> > >> What do mean : But I don't think you need to use MARK to do policy > >> routing. > >> It's a little overkill. > >> > >> Do you another suggestion than iptables/MARK? > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Remus > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "Wang Jian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: > >> Cc: "Remus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 12:23 PM > >> Subject: [Openvpn-users] Re: [LARTC] UDP port 1194 marking/routing > >> problem > >> > >> > >> > Hi Remus, > >> > > >> > It seems that > >> > > >> > iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -p udp --dport 1194 -j MARK \ > >> >--set-mark 0x990 > >> > > >> > will not take effect. (didn't you typo -A as -D?) > >> > > >> > POSTROUTING is looked up after routing decision is made. Because the > >> > default route is dev eth1, the output device is eth1, -o eth0 will not > >> > match. > >> > > >> > You should use > >> > > >> > iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p udp --destination >> >peer> --dport 1194 -j MARK > >> > > >> > But I don't think you need to use MARK to do policy routing. It's a > >> > little overkill. > >> > > >> > Why not simply route all traffic to your openvpn peer via device eth0? > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:51:16 +0100, "Remus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> Hi folks, > >> >> > >> >> I have OpenVPN (respect for it developers) running on my FW. > >> >> Is has two external NICs and on internal everything is fine, except > >> >> I want OpenVPN (UDP port 1194) going not via default route/network > >> >> interface. > >> >> > >> >> I use such commands: > >> >> > >> >> iptables -t mangle -D POSTROUTING -o eth0 -p udp --dport 1194 -j > >> >> MARK --set-mark 0x990 > >> >> ip rule add fwmark 0x990 table openvpn1 > >> >> ip route add default via $P2 dev eth0 table openvpn1 > >> >> > >> >> eth0 is FW's not default external NIC. > >> >> > >> >> I have in use very similar iptables rules for my email server (TCP > >> >> ports) > >> >> and etc. > >> >> Everything works fine.
Re: [LARTC] UDP port 1194 marking/routing problem
Wang, That solution does not suite me: ip route add default via $DEFAULTGW dev eth1 ip route add xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/32 via $ANOTHERGW dev eth0 Because only UPD 1194 has to be routed via eth0 to OpenVPN server IP, everything else to same Ip has to go via eth1. Any ideas? Regards Remus - Original Message - From: "Wang Jian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Remus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 1:38 PM Subject: Re: [Openvpn-users] Re: [LARTC] UDP port 1194 marking/routing problem Hi Remus, I means: don't use policy routing, because you can use much simpler solution. Example: ip route add default via $DEFAULTGW dev eth1 ip route add xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/32 via $ANOTHERGW dev eth0 The second, send all your traffic to IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx via eth0. When your box acts as your intranet's gateway, you can SNAT or MASQUERADE on eth0, like iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE. For you openvpn configuration, you can either bind openvpn to eth0's ip, or let system chooose the IP, in most case the output interface. On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:54:53 +0100, "Remus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Wang, We specialy got two Internet connections, one is only for the OpenVPN (it is heavily used) and second for everthing else. I will give a try to PREROUTING stuff right away. What do mean : But I don't think you need to use MARK to do policy routing. It's a little overkill. Do you another suggestion than iptables/MARK? Regards Remus - Original Message - From: "Wang Jian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Cc: "Remus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 12:23 PM Subject: [Openvpn-users] Re: [LARTC] UDP port 1194 marking/routing problem > Hi Remus, > > It seems that > > iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -p udp --dport 1194 -j MARK \ >--set-mark 0x990 > > will not take effect. (didn't you typo -A as -D?) > > POSTROUTING is looked up after routing decision is made. Because the > default route is dev eth1, the output device is eth1, -o eth0 will not > match. > > You should use > > iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p udp --destination >peer> --dport 1194 -j MARK > > But I don't think you need to use MARK to do policy routing. It's a > little overkill. > > Why not simply route all traffic to your openvpn peer via device eth0? > > > On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:51:16 +0100, "Remus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> >> Hi folks, >> >> I have OpenVPN (respect for it developers) running on my FW. >> Is has two external NICs and on internal everything is fine, except >> I want OpenVPN (UDP port 1194) going not via default route/network >> interface. >> >> I use such commands: >> >> iptables -t mangle -D POSTROUTING -o eth0 -p udp --dport 1194 -j >> MARK --set-mark 0x990 >> ip rule add fwmark 0x990 table openvpn1 >> ip route add default via $P2 dev eth0 table openvpn1 >> >> eth0 is FW's not default external NIC. >> >> I have in use very similar iptables rules for my email server (TCP >> ports) >> and etc. >> Everything works fine. >> What I'm doing wrong with marking/routing the UDP port? >> >> Regards >> >> Remus >> > > > > -- > lark > > > > --- > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real > users. > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click > ___ > Openvpn-users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users > > ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc -- lark --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Openvpn-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [Openvpn-users] Re: [LARTC] UDP port 1194 marking/routing problem
Hi Remus, I means: don't use policy routing, because you can use much simpler solution. Example: ip route add default via $DEFAULTGW dev eth1 ip route add xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/32 via $ANOTHERGW dev eth0 The second, send all your traffic to IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx via eth0. When your box acts as your intranet's gateway, you can SNAT or MASQUERADE on eth0, like iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE. For you openvpn configuration, you can either bind openvpn to eth0's ip, or let system chooose the IP, in most case the output interface. On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:54:53 +0100, "Remus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Wang, > > We specialy got two Internet connections, one is only for the OpenVPN (it is > heavily used) and second for everthing else. > I will give a try to PREROUTING stuff right away. > > What do mean : But I don't think you need to use MARK to do policy routing. > It's a little overkill. > > Do you another suggestion than iptables/MARK? > > Regards > > Remus > > > - Original Message - > From: "Wang Jian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Cc: "Remus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 12:23 PM > Subject: [Openvpn-users] Re: [LARTC] UDP port 1194 marking/routing problem > > > > Hi Remus, > > > > It seems that > > > > iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -p udp --dport 1194 -j MARK \ > >--set-mark 0x990 > > > > will not take effect. (didn't you typo -A as -D?) > > > > POSTROUTING is looked up after routing decision is made. Because the > > default route is dev eth1, the output device is eth1, -o eth0 will not > > match. > > > > You should use > > > > iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p udp --destination >peer> --dport 1194 -j MARK > > > > But I don't think you need to use MARK to do policy routing. It's a > > little overkill. > > > > Why not simply route all traffic to your openvpn peer via device eth0? > > > > > > On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:51:16 +0100, "Remus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > >> Hi folks, > >> > >> I have OpenVPN (respect for it developers) running on my FW. > >> Is has two external NICs and on internal everything is fine, except > >> I want OpenVPN (UDP port 1194) going not via default route/network > >> interface. > >> > >> I use such commands: > >> > >> iptables -t mangle -D POSTROUTING -o eth0 -p udp --dport 1194 -j > >> MARK --set-mark 0x990 > >> ip rule add fwmark 0x990 table openvpn1 > >> ip route add default via $P2 dev eth0 table openvpn1 > >> > >> eth0 is FW's not default external NIC. > >> > >> I have in use very similar iptables rules for my email server (TCP ports) > >> and etc. > >> Everything works fine. > >> What I'm doing wrong with marking/routing the UDP port? > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Remus > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > lark > > > > > > > > --- > > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. > > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click > > ___ > > Openvpn-users mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users > > > > > > > ___ > LARTC mailing list > LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc -- lark ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [Openvpn-users] Re: [LARTC] UDP port 1194 marking/routing problem
Hi Wang, We specialy got two Internet connections, one is only for the OpenVPN (it is heavily used) and second for everthing else. I will give a try to PREROUTING stuff right away. What do mean : But I don't think you need to use MARK to do policy routing. It's a little overkill. Do you another suggestion than iptables/MARK? Regards Remus - Original Message - From: "Wang Jian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Cc: "Remus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 12:23 PM Subject: [Openvpn-users] Re: [LARTC] UDP port 1194 marking/routing problem Hi Remus, It seems that iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -p udp --dport 1194 -j MARK \ --set-mark 0x990 will not take effect. (didn't you typo -A as -D?) POSTROUTING is looked up after routing decision is made. Because the default route is dev eth1, the output device is eth1, -o eth0 will not match. You should use iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p udp --destination --dport 1194 -j MARK But I don't think you need to use MARK to do policy routing. It's a little overkill. Why not simply route all traffic to your openvpn peer via device eth0? On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:51:16 +0100, "Remus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi folks, I have OpenVPN (respect for it developers) running on my FW. Is has two external NICs and on internal everything is fine, except I want OpenVPN (UDP port 1194) going not via default route/network interface. I use such commands: iptables -t mangle -D POSTROUTING -o eth0 -p udp --dport 1194 -j MARK --set-mark 0x990 ip rule add fwmark 0x990 table openvpn1 ip route add default via $P2 dev eth0 table openvpn1 eth0 is FW's not default external NIC. I have in use very similar iptables rules for my email server (TCP ports) and etc. Everything works fine. What I'm doing wrong with marking/routing the UDP port? Regards Remus -- lark --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Openvpn-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] UDP port 1194 marking/routing problem
Hi Remus, It seems that iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -p udp --dport 1194 -j MARK \ --set-mark 0x990 will not take effect. (didn't you typo -A as -D?) POSTROUTING is looked up after routing decision is made. Because the default route is dev eth1, the output device is eth1, -o eth0 will not match. You should use iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p udp --destination --dport 1194 -j MARK But I don't think you need to use MARK to do policy routing. It's a little overkill. Why not simply route all traffic to your openvpn peer via device eth0? On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:51:16 +0100, "Remus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi folks, > > I have OpenVPN (respect for it developers) running on my FW. > Is has two external NICs and on internal everything is fine, except > I want OpenVPN (UDP port 1194) going not via default route/network interface. > > I use such commands: > > iptables -t mangle -D POSTROUTING -o eth0 -p udp --dport 1194 -j MARK > --set-mark 0x990 > ip rule add fwmark 0x990 table openvpn1 > > ip route add default via $P2 dev eth0 table openvpn1 > > eth0 is FW's not default external NIC. > > I have in use very similar iptables rules for my email server (TCP ports) and > etc. > Everything works fine. > What I'm doing wrong with marking/routing the UDP port? > > Regards > > Remus > -- lark ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
[LARTC] UDP port 1194 marking/routing problem
Hi folks, I have OpenVPN (respect for it developers) running on my FW. Is has two external NICs and on internal everything is fine, except I want OpenVPN (UDP port 1194) going not via default route/network interface. I use such commands: iptables -t mangle -D POSTROUTING -o eth0 -p udp --dport 1194 -j MARK --set-mark 0x990 ip rule add fwmark 0x990 table openvpn1 ip route add default via $P2 dev eth0 table openvpn1 eth0 is FW's not default external NIC. I have in use very similar iptables rules for my email server (TCP ports) and etc. Everything works fine. What I'm doing wrong with marking/routing the UDP port? Regards Remus ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
