From owner-freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Mon Jun 29 10:42:35 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 457E498F2A1 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 10:42:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ian.freislich@capeaugusta.com) Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4EA11CFD for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 10:42:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ian.freislich@capeaugusta.com) Received: by wiga1 with SMTP id a1so67412604wig.0 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 03:42:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-id:date:message-id; bh=u93+E1ipx8NApmtTssaCb/dkow4R+m3sWi89De6zHH0=; b=IyxjcDGy8jouz2kHsB6UbEf7XjrZFWazrCsuqyoj04bLsL5Uu4CXhah39hi+agv1Dp mnF3IoRmBszi/iRmJMg0qwSiQDZHAqSEqetto5+mTH/MFIajQgD31g5M+sfe2WfrB4vn dWU8mXDWc0Ewwj/czgeIJGkkstCp7FIAfWBgRMmH1i1y3a/xIvWjt0rpzo9eQGu/WQw7 xIrVDuHWkR/qvOgwMa+VacOfQu7MZSKayKQ4HvQsWOL4kIs1uu1n9/b961RorSymqY2q KJfC9HqffffoqyrnLvDJzUmmE1DhcR8V0Urp6F8NOF6Vv9hbZyFNyo7nxTYqZmei1HgR V+dA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnlVItan25qFncx0D+ZB5/U32XPnUYVD37HPtnfa1ATv1BlFnaC6Y/71LLMcN7oEsAFCFx9 X-Received: by 10.194.187.51 with SMTP id fp19mr25974229wjc.67.1435574546970; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 03:42:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clue.co.za ([197.89.34.55]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pd7sm63398018wjb.27.2015.06.29.03.42.25 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Jun 2015 03:42:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Ian FREISLICH X-Google-Original-From: Ian FREISLICH Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=zen) by clue.co.za with esmtp (Exim 4.85 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Z9WW6-000PzF-PO; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 12:42:22 +0200 To: Milan Obuch cc: Daniel Hartmeier , freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Large scale NAT with PF - some weird problem In-Reply-To: <20150629114506.1cfd6f1b@zeta.dino.sk> References: <20150629114506.1cfd6f1b@zeta.dino.sk> <14e119e8fa8.2755.abfb21602af57f30a7457738c46ad3ae@capeaugusta.com> <20150621195753.7b162633@zeta.dino.sk> <20150623112331.668395d1@zeta.dino.sk> <20150628100609.635544e0@zeta.dino.sk> <20150629082654.GA22693@insomnia.benzedrine.ch> <20150629105201.7ee24e38@zeta.dino.sk> <20150629092932.GC22693@insomnia.benzedrine.ch> X-Attribution: BOFH MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <99895.1435574542.1@zen> Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 12:42:22 +0200 Message-Id: X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter \(pf\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 10:42:35 -0000 Milan Obuch wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 11:29:32 +0200 > Daniel Hartmeier wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:52:01AM +0200, Milan Obuch wrote: > > > > > Does this answerred your question fully or something more would be > > > usefull? > > > > How are you doing ARP? > > > > You're not assigning every address on x.y.26.0/23 as an alias, are > > you? > > > > So who answers ARP requests of the upstream router? > > There is no ARP on routed address block. > > In cisco speak, there is just > > ip route x.y.24.0 255.255.252.0 x.y.3.19 > > statement and that's it. Nothing more. Whole address range from > x.y.24.0 to x.y.27.254 is routed here as it should be. For something > like this ARP would be really evil solution. That's OK, as long as the NAT network is routed to your PF box it will work. The situation you mentioned in a previous message where you see lots and lots of NAT states for a single public IP address is what I suspected was happening. When you require more NAT states per IP than ephemeral ports you will run into issues because you will run out of NAT space. If the round-robin works with a smaller pool, then I suspect Glebius will be interested. Ian -- Ian Freislich