From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 2 18:20:10 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D8614A4 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 18:20:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru (onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru [46.4.40.135]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DF62CEB for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 18:20:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nat.in.devexperts.com [89.113.128.63]) (Authenticated sender: lev@serebryakov.spb.ru) by onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 61CB25C002 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 21:19:39 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <54CFBFB9.9040801@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 21:19:37 +0300 From: Lev Serebryakov Reply-To: lev@FreeBSD.org Organization: FreeBSD User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How to configure nat for interface which will be created later? References: <54CFBDF7.30301@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <54CFBDF7.30301@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:20:10 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 02.02.2015 21:12, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > It is possible to use non-existing interface name in via / xmit / > recv option. It allows to write firewall which works with, say, > VPN connection which is created AFTER firewall is loaded on boot. > > But "nat X config if " doesn't allow to use non-existing > interface name! It looks like very strict limitation, as it > doesn't allow to include VPN to nat config! > > Is here any solution for this problem? Looking at "sbin/ipfw/nat.c:166" and "sys/netpfil/ipfw/ip_fw_nat.c", it looks like this userland check is too restrictive. But I'm not sure, that I'm right... - -- // Lev Serebryakov -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJUz7+5XxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRGOTZEMUNBMEI1RjQzMThCNjc0QjMzMEFF QUIwM0M1OEJGREM0NzhGAAoJEOqwPFi/3EePL6kP/2CFIvPrqGhYISH1z420qAoK r5oE5SwlFcwARQONqUuizTsmlqt4UIP8xWGxb7YWzQgkbXVlht1zgBvby3xVzlJo zoXfSsz9CN3GJShBkuCcXG0pHh1UpFrFYR1RN8uLHvsm6i+Hq5nZuaBSio+eaD1+ x/TmLdz+zVmQGO6GWscnN21A0bRP49Q4KJKZlkklAhZ0xVU9QQ77Mc3vCMOk0dGA ObAeFu8fWqQHVGCeQppxJkLynWrhnHyyTeJvEvewGC+aWCu9H4xxa5oTEKFytQWc ImQcfzkqgnk5U1gPsND89RXp8gxqWzV9TbRXF7cV2hHFbs4inJAUw+n2ammM4iFR xg2BJlSxcaCx2xYtERqSRT6MRFR1zI1q/hEOW6puyJ611ILQ+TQRp5zrhnY1RkSe qtVrpgtchJsFK1759PreVqd6dAbmfjhnklgdoL6J6r+LjNpEOI+2t0O+4sudG0M3 T1unH0K8IcdRg67LYJW371pUn5V4qIhnur8YXuXp24vuHvDZQmhZRdRDrpfESl+s f97H06jGA9FIRS05o0PMIGUtpI48S7XjoaobOcb1CjVTfyItWMjAvK7TkpF1zmxD z8AOdpHDZezf/TVDGKNxBLrQzK9hMOoUz9PKQA7JkbfDHmT6/zwDTBYnNjSW+VuS ExLECR6f/seC3nEW6tek =Vyhu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----