On Fri, 10 Jan 2014, Simon Hobson wrote:

>> DNS(ACCEPT)  dmz:192.168.110.0/24     all
>> DROP         dmz:192.168.110.0/24     net:!8.8.8.8,208.67.222.222  udp
>>
>> Where 8.8.8.8 and 208.67.222.222 are the DNS in /etc/resolv.conf
>
> You have redundant information in there. Since you have an accept rule 
> for the DNS traffic, you don't need to exclude that from the following 
> drop, hence you can just do :
>
> DNS(ACCEPT)  dmz:192.168.110.0/24     all
> DROP         dmz:192.168.110.0/24     net  udp

That was my first idea, but I noticied that when these rules are 
active, the name resolution is very slow, so I tried this (and other 
variations).
And I can't understand what is slowing DNS activity (connections by naame 
are slow while connections by IP are normal).

Tried to add logging as from Tom's hint:

DNS(ACCEPT)     dmz:192.168.110.0/24       all
LOG:6           dmz:192.168.110.0/24       net:!8.8.8.8,208.67.222.222  udp
DROP            dmz:192.168.110.0/24       net:!8.8.8.8,208.67.222.222  udp

But my limited iptables skill and the amount of data in log doesn't help :-)

> Also, if (as would normally be the case) 192.168.110.0/24 is the whole DMZ 
> zone then you can remove that part - so you are now down to :
> DNS(ACCEPT)  dmz     all
> DROP         dmz     net  udp
>
> Depending on your traffic profile and hardware capability, that could be 
> a significant decrease in CPU loading for the same result.

I have a DMZ not limited to 192.168.110.0/24 ... :-)

Thanks, P.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. 
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Shorewall-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users

Reply via email to