Eliezer wrote: > one important thing to be aware of is that if you are using the same box > as a gateway and squidbox it's better to use the "redirect" instead of > DNAT. > > you can always try to use: > http://nocat.net/downloads/NoCatSplash/ > > or to write your own helper. > it can be pretty simple to build such an helper and you will just need > to use some NAT chains\tables on iptables that will redirect any > connection to the world into the webserver with a login page that > connected to a script that will do some stuff in the iptables "allow" > table. > > do you need to apply some username and password mechanism\auth or just > splash screen to agree some rules\agreement ? > > Eliezer >
Thanks again, Eliezer. The hint for the REDIRECT target is a good point. NoCatSplash does not work for my as I need more control. Not only that users need to login, they also need to logout when done. Furthermore, I need to trigger a traffic quotation system from the login/out script. Also, web traffic needs to be logged. NoCatSplash seems not to be flexible enough. Hans > On 29/05/2012 09:12, Hans Musil wrote: > > Amos Jeffries wrote: > >> On 29.05.2012 08:13, Eliezer Croitoru wrote: > >>> hey there Hans, > >>> > >>> are you serving squid on the same machine as the gateway is?(wasnt > >>> sure about the DNAT). > >>> your problem is not directly related to squid but to the way that tcp > >>> and browsers works. > >>> for every connection that the client browser uses exist a tcp windows > >>> that stays alive for a period of time after the page was served. > >>> this will cause to all the connections that was served using port > >>> 3128 to still exist for i think 5 till 10 more minutes or whatever is > >>> your tcp stack settings. > >> > >> While that is true for the TCP details I think HTTP connection > >> behaviour is why that matters. For the TCP timeouts closure to start > >> happening HTTP has to first stop using the connection. > >> > >> iptables NAT only affects SYN packets (ie new connections). So any > >> existing TCP connections made by HTTP WILL continue to operate despite > >> any changes to NAT rules. > >> > >> HTTP persistent connections, CONNECT tunnels and HTTP > >> "streaming"/large objects have no fixed lifetime and several minutes > >> for idle timeout. It is quite common to see client TCP connections > >> lasting whole hours or days with HTTP traffic flow throughout. > >> > >>> > >>> On 28/05/2012 22:34, Hans Musil wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> my box is running on Debian Sqeeze, which uses SQUID version > >>>> 2.7.STABLE9, but my problem also seems to affect SQUID version 3.1. > >>>> > >>>> These are the importend lines from my squid.conf: > >>>> > >>>> http_port 3128 transparent > >>>> http_port 3129 transparent > >>>> url_rewrite_program /etc/squid/url_rewrite.php > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> First, I did configure my Linux iptables like this: > >>>> > >>>> # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.8 on Mon May 28 21:04:09 2012 > >>>> *nat > >>>> :PREROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] > >>>> :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] > >>>> :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] > >>>> -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT > >>>> --to-destination 10.17.0.1:3128 > >>>> COMMIT > >>>> > >>>> and everything works fine. > >>>> > >>>> But when I change the redirect port in the iptables settings from > >>>> 3128 to 3129, Squid behaves strange: My URL rewrite program still > >>>> gets send myport=3128, althought there is definitely no more request > >>>> on this port, but only on 3129. This only affects HTTP domains that > >>>> already have been requested before, i.e. with redirection to port > >>>> 3128, and it works fine again when I do a force-reload on my > >>>> browser. Also, things turn well when waiting some minutes. > >>>> > >>>> I suppose there is some strange caching inside Squid that maps the > >>>> HTTP domain to an incoming port. > >> > >> No. There is only an active TCP connection. Multiple HTTP request can > >> arrive on the connection long after you start sending unrelated new > >> connections+requests through other ports. > >> > >> > >> What your helper was passed is the details about the request Squid > >> received. It arrived on a TCP connection which was accepted through > >> Squid port 3128. The fact that you changed the kernel settings after > >> that connection was setup and operating is irrelevant. > >> > >> > >> URL-rewriting is a form of NAT on the URL, but with far worse > >> side-effects than IP-layer NAT and is often a sign of major design > >> mistakes somewhere in the network. Why do you have to re-write in the > >> first place? perhapse we could point you at a simpler more standards > >> compliant setup. > >> > >> Amos > >> > > Thanks Amos. This makes things even clearer. Actually, I'd say that my > > problem is solved with the help of both of you. But well, let's have a > > look on my design. > > > > My goal is to build up an access control mechanism for my client > > machines to the internet. As long as a user has not yet logged in, his > > client box should be completely cut off the internet, not only HTTP. > > > > The login is done by a web interface. This is where I redirect the URL > > rewriting for any web traffic. After the user has logged in, the > > client's HTTP packets will be DNATed to the other squid port in order to > > be regularly proxied. I need the HTTP proxy for logging my users' HTTP > > requests. > > > > Since the users' client machines are out of my control, it is important > > for me that they don't need any special configuration, That's why the > > squid must run in transparent mode. > > > > Remark: I'm about to leave for one week of holidays. Thus, I probably > > won't be able to respond before end of next week. > > > > Hans > > > > > -- > Eliezer Croitoru > https://www1.ngtech.co.il > IT consulting for Nonprofit organizations > eliezer <at> ngtech.co.il -- Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de
