From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 18 11:51:44 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11B0512C for ; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:51:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from terje@elde.net) Received: from keepquiet.net (keepquiet.net [78.46.162.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5570C239C for ; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:51:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.130.10.194] (cm-84.210.76.250.getinternet.no [84.210.76.250]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: terje@elde.net) by keepquiet.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9A3CA2E40B; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 13:51:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: VPN where local private address collide Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Terje Elde In-Reply-To: <52109FF8.7010301@fjl.co.uk> Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 13:51:30 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4653241B-5254-4B23-8D87-90355EFFB07B@elde.net> References: <520E5EC0.5090105@fjl.co.uk> <9FB6809B-DD5D-4A04-8BD9-0271FAC03181@elde.net> <520F53A2.80707@fjl.co.uk> <520F8AA8.8030407@fjl.co.uk> <1FF39756-0555-4CD8-95B7-862F9644CF78@elde.net> <52109FF8.7010301@fjl.co.uk> To: Frank Leonhardt X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:51:44 -0000 On 18. aug. 2013, at 12.20, Frank Leonhardt wrote: > I'm not sure that TLS would cause more problems than any other = packets, but as you point out, the exercise is bound to be full of pooh = traps as yet undiscovered. FTP should be interesting, for a start. But = for most things, why would swapping an IP address in the packet header = cause any kind of problem as long as it was done consistently? I was cutting corners and trying to keep the reply short (was on = cellphone at the time), and I think the word headers might have lead to = some crosstalk. For TCP/IP itself, just consistently swapping the IP would solve the = problem. That'd fix a lot, and things like like ssh and http should = work fine with that. If we look at other things though, like SIP, it's not that easy. I'm = using SIP as an example just because it illustrates the point nicely, = and I know it well. For SIP, you'd have the IP in multiple places: TCP/IP - the connection to the server. SIP - The application protocol RTP - Payload in the application protocol, carrying media-metadata Now, you'd get the connection to the server (TCP/IP), but for = registering against the SIP-server, the client would include it's IP in = the SIP-layer as well, in a http-like header. It'd tell the server = where it would want to be contacted for things like incoming calls. = Initially this would point to the clients perspective of the IP, and not = to the IP it were to carry after NAT. That is, the client would be able = to register, but for incoming calls the server would try to contact the = IP in the wrong place. For placing calls, you'd also have information about where media-streams = should go in RTP, both IP and port numbers. This would also carry wrong = information if you're merely changing the IP/port in TCP/IP-layers. Both of these can be resolved wither in the router/firewall/NAT-box, or = worked around on the server, but it's not pretty by a long shot, and = it's completely avoidable if you can avoid the NAT. > There are lots of corporate networks on 10.x.x.x, and I'm told this = kind of caper is used to sort them out when they collide. Paying for a = Cisco VPN could easily work out cheaper than reconfiguring a large = corporate LAN, but I don't have the budget for either. This kind of thing *can* be used to sort out colliding subnets, but that = doesn't mean it *should* be used to resolve the issue(s). You mentioned that a Cisco-guy said this would work, and explained = details of how to do it. I'm thinking that the same Cisco-guy could also give details on how to = drop a rack full of Juniper-equipment out of a 10th floor window, in = order to replace it with Cisco-gear. It's quite possible to do that, = but again, that doesn't mean you should. I think the gist of the issue here is that you have a problem, and = you're (correctly) thinking you can solve a lot if you NAT the two = networks together. That's not wrong, it's completely true. You can get = a lot to work in that way. Then you also have some random-looking guy on a mailing-list telling you = that "Yes, you can do that. But you shouldn't". I get how hard it can = be to take that kind of advice, especially when you know and have been = told that it's quite possible. If you really, really want to explore that route, then here's one way to = go about it: Use the VPN just to get the link up, don't worry about using NAT with = MPD. It's nice to keep all of the nat/firewall-bits in a single place, = and pf is a good solution to it. If you're running the VPN off of the primary gateway, this should be = fairly straight-forward, and you should be able to use something like = this: pf.conf on gateway/vpn-endpoint in lan_a: ---- lan_a =3D "192.168.0.0/24" lan_b =3D "192.168.0.0/24" vpn_a =3D "192.168.1.0/24" vpn_b =3D "192.168.2.0/24" binat on $vpn_if from $lan_a to any -> $vpn_a ---- pf.conf on gateway/vpn-endpoint in lan_b: ---- lan_a =3D "192.168.0.0/24" lan_b =3D "192.168.0.0/24" vpn_a =3D "192.168.1.0/24" vpn_b =3D "192.168.2.0/24" binat on $vpn_if from $lan_b to any -> $vpn_b ---- The VPN-tunnel itself could ignore any concept of the conflicting = 192.168.0.0/24-range, and simply deal with 192.168.1.0/24 being on one = end, and 192.168.2.0/24 on the other. If you're standing in lan_a, and your local address is 192.168.0.182, = and you'd like to reach 192.168.0.17 in lan_b, you'd talk to = 192.168.2.17. In lan_a, the conneciton would be seen as 192.168.0.182 -> 192.168.2.17. Crossing the lan_a VPN-endpoing going into the tunnel, it'd get = rewritten to be 192.168.1.182 -> 192.168.2.17. Crossing the lan_b VPN-endpoint going into lan_b, it'd get rewritten to = be 192.168.1.182 -> 192.168.0.17 You'd then hit the right server. The response from 192.168.0.17 (in lan_b) would get routed back over the = VPN-tunnel, since it's sent to 192.168.1.182. That is, in lan_b the response would be 192.168.0.17 -> 192.168.1.182. Crossing the lan_b VPN-endpoing going into the tunnel, on the way back = to lan_a, it'd get rewritten to be 192.168.2.17 -> 192.168.1.182. Crossing the lan_a VPN-endpoing going from the tunnel, into lan_a, it'd = get rewritten to be 192.168.2.17 -> 192.168.0.182. This is what you want I think? (you'd have to fix DNS and routing as well, though routing would work = out if the VPN is on the default gateway). Now, if we take this setup, and go back to the example of SIP, so see = how it'd play out over this config: A phone at 192.168.0.200 in lan_a, registeres against the SIP-server at = 192.168.0.50 in lan_b. If we run the rewrites, the request comes in from 192.168.2.200 to the = SIP-server, and the SIP-servers response gets back through the same = routing and rewriting. All good, right? Well, it's not quite that easy. In the SIP-headers (not the IP or TCP headers), the phone will list = something like this: Contact: The server would register that the phone is available at 192.168.0.200 = (locally, in lan_b), while the server would actually need to send to = 192.168.2.200, in order to reach 192.168.0.200 in lan_a. Exactly how this would behave depends on a lot of factors, but you'd = quickly end up with a situation in which the phone *appears* to work, = can register against the server and call out (both client-initiated), = but where incoming calls just don't work (sent to 192.168.0.200 in = lan_b, rather than in lan_a). Then you'll not only have to debug the NAT-setup, but SIP as well. Again, there's different ways to solve this. You could do a similar = rewriting on the gateways for SIP as you do for IP, and you could solve = it on the server. Some SIP-servers actually include logic for this kind of thing by = default, but that logic might not be applied because this is private = IPs, which are often excluded from that kind of thing. You could always apply the logic, but then you'd be running calls = between two phones in lan_a over the VPN to lan_b and back again, = because of all of this would need to be solved for RTP-headers and = RTP-streams as well. Then you have to instantly turn into not only a networking and NAT = expert, but an expert on VoIP and the specific VoIP-solutions used as = well. All completely avoidable, if you were to renumber the networks instead. And SIP is just one example. (all of this is slightly simplified, and intending more to illustrate = the poing and explain how it can be done, than as full and extensive = documentation). Terje