Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 10:41:14 +0200 From: Julien Cigar <julien@perdition.city> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CARP and NAT question Message-ID: <20191010084114.GY2691@home.lan> In-Reply-To: <2591c7ce-887e-0e38-bb69-01c1e0ba5bd4@freebsd.org> References: <20191008134851.GP2691@home.lan> <a0a3a5c2-1300-b90b-3114-ae80adcf7f4d@shrew.net> <20191008155813.GS2691@home.lan> <b182358f-8ec0-4a71-b201-1736282d847d@freebsd.org> <20191009093454.GU2691@home.lan> <2591c7ce-887e-0e38-bb69-01c1e0ba5bd4@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 12:50:49PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 10/9/19 2:34 AM, Julien Cigar wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 01:05:37PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > >> On 10/8/19 8:58 AM, Julien Cigar wrote: > >>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:20:34AM -0500, Matthew Grooms wrote: > >>>> Hi Julien, > >>> Hi Matthew, > >>> > >>>> It's not clear why you are trying to assign multiple carp IP address to > >>>> two different interfaces from within the same IP subnet. Are you trying > >>>> to fail over a 2nd carp address or are you trying to improve > >>>> throughput/redundancy? If you just want to fail over a 2nd carp address, > >>>> assign a 2nd alias to your first interface. If your trying to improve > >>>> throughput/redundancy, assign both interfaces to a lagg and build your > >>>> carp interfaces on top of that instead. > >>>> > >>> Currently outbound traffic from $net1 and $net2 (two private networks) > >>> pass through the same network interface (igb0) (as you can see in (1) > >>> in my previous post) on the router. I'd like to prevent that > >>> $net2 saturates the interface and slow down traffic from $net1 (which is > >>> more important). I could lagg and build CARP on top of that but it > >>> wouldn't prevent $net2 to saturate the interface (unless I'm plugin ALTQ > >>> of course, which I'd like to avoid). > >>> > >>>> -Matthew > >>>> > >>>> On 10/8/2019 8:48 AM, Julien Cigar wrote: > >>>>> Hello, > >>>>> > >>>>> I'd like to NAT outbound traffic from two different private networks > >>>>> through two different interfaces, with CARP on top. I have 4 public IPS > >>>>> available (193.x.x.89, 193.x.x.90, 193.x.x.91, 193.x.x.92). > >>>>> > >>>>> I have two redundant router/firewall running FreeBSD 12 with CARP and > >>>>> PF with the following: (1) which works well, but all traffic > >>>>> goes through the same interface. > >>>>> > >>>>> So I'd like to switch to something like (2), which will not work (lines > >>>>> 5 and 13 are not valid) and I'm wondering if I could use something like > >>>>> (3) ..? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you! > >>>>> Julien > >>>>> > >>>>> (1) https://gist.github.com/silenius/4f6173a9b6690292c2174ab3bb89d292 > >>>>> (2) https://gist.github.com/silenius/da9be7e74e9861fa55f927d194e3e410 > >>>>> (3) https://gist.github.com/silenius/b237565b0d181248ff80ea296e5537db > >>>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > >>>> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > >>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >> can you draw it? > > yes, see https://ibb.co/mv5RPM9 > > so, you have several ways of doing this: > > one is to assign a different routing table to each class of traffic. > > Each table has a different default route, sending data out to a > different external interface. > > Each interface out is NAT'd so that the return packets will come back > the same way. I haven't played with multiple FIB(s) yet (which still require a custom kernel with options ROUTETABLES, I think?) but I'll take a look. As I can see it's a little bit more more work than the route-to PF route option. > > But you only have a single pipe to the internet, So one wonders how > that helps with redundancy? > Adding a second switch and another redundant link is also planned, but at the moment by "redundancy" I was talking of router1 and router2, and the integration with CARP, especially the "real" addresses on the interfaces as I have only 4 public ones and 3 of them are already used on the first interface. But I think that starting with FreeBSD 11 (?) real and virtual addresses couldn't be in the same subnet, for example I think this should work: ########### # router1 # ########### ifconfig_igb0="inet 193.1.2.89 netmask 255.255.255.224 -tso" ifconfig_igb0_alias0="inet vhid 53 advskew 0 pass xxx alias 193.1.2.90/32" ifconfig_igb1="inet 10.1.2.3 netmask 255.255.255.224 -tso" ifconfig_igb1_alias0="inet vhid 54 advskew 0 pass xxx alias 193.1.2.92/32" ########### # router2 # ########### ifconfig_igb0="inet 193.1.2.91 netmask 255.255.255.224 -tso" ifconfig_igb0_alias0="inet vhid 53 advskew 100 pass xxx alias 193.1.2.90/32" ifconfig_igb1="inet 10.1.2.4 netmask 255.255.255.224 -tso" ifconfig_igb1_alias0="inet vhid 54 advskew 100 pass xxx alias 193.1.2.92/32" > > thanks for you help :) Julien > > > > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > -- Julien Cigar Belgian Biodiversity Platform (http://www.biodiversity.be) PGP fingerprint: EEF9 F697 4B68 D275 7B11 6A25 B2BB 3710 A204 23C0 No trees were killed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were terribly inconvenienced. [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEnF27CBNtOraRNmgqCLYqJMpBHmkFAl2e7qYACgkQCLYqJMpB HmlCng//ZiWkBmfTd1NqWinRCA/q5bBI2/zx9Oxn+/almdsbXIfsqWDdZiCtbmDh 9bDQaF1Di5uX54hWPCLzhXoerMtfUZaQ7M5Ws/zkbaW0m5pI25nzuRrcDZp/l1qm 2jSrfSyt/0YHE4CtdopvX5iXJw6Di1iypSlXokqur6GzUOJh0+ZeM1wSew9Rv/3q HHhI1Sl1yLw/THMBXs+blKKOYoFeeaMcN0ccFvsE/5MR0QbYOYMinXs4LK23txVp WQU36gzwHUQNBUTM1kmDSSAyYz6u6Bai1NBM5Imsa2Uy2ht43BT/000Ay6pkve50 +ox/rXSdSnLVzLn5fRFQVt9nAS/iUeNEW1sV+Dc9/jy8vfcCdzfb50McuEcSVbud H4K8DKLQz8gNFmQlWLTebU74+jvEt04oXQKTA/ly6QvBRsLJH2F9e11vjNFtRtGh +tcCAggvbvnHCEzFwToHNGsIH8HJQP1y4VRQME421cVrb+SzKJ89HQ0y6eTvC+vV 0G4NBCNxS2rdnAViFZqo8stqf326ROgMGpCPJjQ/Ow57QMJu/WybF3Rs8JSVC2J+ njw/eLmoLT6igG1Umm6a/Gu/c9kMHDWlssVo521CVn7Mx8bqaaJiEKOsj2ovjhQ2 DGAAes0per1eRG2tAYdzj3KHpvk1+oi00hS/6YytVCUFSrh+/AQ= =HLdY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20191010084114.GY2691>