Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:24:10 -0500
From:      Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>
Cc:        luigi@FreeBSD.org, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>
Subject:   Re: NAT broken in -CURRENT
Message-ID:  <1261862650.1555.28.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com>
In-Reply-To: <20091226212104.GA10498@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
References:  <1261859138.1555.26.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20091226212104.GA10498@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--=-HQjnCQwWbjiTOqHYuCF4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, 2009-12-26 at 22:21 +0100, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 03:25:38PM -0500, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> ...
> > I updated my -CURRENT box yesterday.  After a reboot, NAT no longer
> > works.  That is, if I have natd running with ipfw diverting packets to
> > it, the box is a big black hole.  No packets leave.  I do see all
> ...
> > I have a feeling the new ipfw code merged ~ 11 days ago is the cause of
> > the problem.  Thinking that perhaps the new modularity is causing this
> > problem, I also added the following two options to my kernel:
> >=20
> > options	IPFIREWALL_NAT
> > options	LIBALIAS
> >=20
> > They did not help.  I have not tried using a purely modular ipfw/NAT
> > combination, but I will attempt that later today.  I didn't see anythin=
g
> > obvious in UPDATING.  Any suggestions, or any recommendations for
> > specific troubleshooting data to capture?  Thanks.
>=20
> the changes were not expected to affect configuration or operation
> so clearly i must have broken something in the reinjection process.
> If you have a chance of looking at the ipfw counters (to see whether
> packets are reinjected and where they end up) that would be helpful.
> I'll try to run some tests here tomorrow or more likely on monday.

As I recall, the divert line (rule 50) had a huge counter value (even
after a reboot), but the other rule (i.e. the permit any any rule) had
very few packets.  I will gather some more concrete numbers later today.
Thanks for looking into it.

Joe

--=20
Joe Marcus Clarke
FreeBSD GNOME Team      ::      gnome@FreeBSD.org
FreeNode / #freebsd-gnome
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome

--=-HQjnCQwWbjiTOqHYuCF4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (FreeBSD)

iEYEABECAAYFAks2fvkACgkQb2iPiv4Uz4dv9wCePaLx1quhoaRuUGLZ1W66cC9u
gCoAn096Iy5J30Y/43rzqAEVZ03hS0y8
=Nu+Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-HQjnCQwWbjiTOqHYuCF4--




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1261862650.1555.28.camel>