Search Results

Search found 133 results on 6 pages for 'dnat'.

Page 5/6 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >

• KVM Guest with NAT + Bridged networking

  - by Daniel

  I currently have a few KVM Guests on a dedicated server with bridged networking (this works) and i can successfully ping the outside ips i assign via ifconfig (in the guest). However, due to the fact i only have 5 public ipv4 ip addresses, i would like to port forward services like so: hostip:port - kvm_guest:port UPDATE I found out KVM comes with a "default" NAT interface, so added the virtual NIC to the Guest virsh configuration then configured it in the Guest, it has the ip address: 192.168.122.112 I can successfully ping 192.168.122.112 and access all ports on 192.168.122.112 from the KVM Host, so i tried to port forward like so: iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 5222 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.122.112:2521 iptables -I FORWARD -m state -d 192.168.122.0/24 --state NEW,RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT telnet KVM_HOST_IP 5222 just hangs on "trying" telnet 192.168.122.112 2521 works [root@node1 ~]# tcpdump port 5222 tcpdump: WARNING: eth0: no IPv4 address assigned tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode listening on eth0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 65535 bytes 23:43:47.216181 IP 1.152.245.247.51183 > null.xmpp-client: Flags [S], seq 1183303931, win 65535, options [mss 1400,nop,wscale 3,nop,nop,TS val 445777813 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0 23:43:48.315747 IP 1.152.245.247.51183 > null.xmpp-client: Flags [S], seq 1183303931, win 65535, options [mss 1400,nop,wscale 3,nop,nop,TS val 445778912 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0 23:43:49.415606 IP 1.152.245.247.51183 > null.xmpp-client: Flags [S], seq 1183303931, win 65535, options [mss 1400,nop,wscale 3,nop,nop,TS val 445780010 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0 7 packets received by filter 0 packets dropped by kernel [root@node1 ~]# iptables -L Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT all -- anywhere 192.168.122.0/24 state NEW,RELATED,ESTABLISHED Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination All help is appreciated. Thanks.

  Read the article

• How to force certain traffic through GRE tunnel?

  - by wew

  Here's what I do. Server (public internet is 222.x.x.x): echo 'net.ipv4.ip_forward=1' >> /etc/sysctl.conf sysctl -p iptunnel add gre1 mode gre local 222.x.x.x remote 115.x.x.x ttl 255 ip add add 192.168.168.1/30 dev gre1 ip link set gre1 up iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.168.0/30 -j SNAT --to-source 222.x.x.x iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -d 222.x.x.x -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.168.2 Client (public internet is 115.x.x.x): iptunnel add gre1 mode gre local 115.x.x.x remote 222.x.x.x ttl 255 ip add add 192.168.168.2/30 dev gre1 ip link set gre1 up echo '100 tunnel' >> /etc/iproute2/rt_tables ip rule add from 192.168.168.0/30 table tunnel ip route add default via 192.168.168.1 table tunnel Until here, all seems going right. But then 1st question, how to use GRE tunnel as a default route? Client computer is still using 115.x.x.x interface as default. 2nd question, how to force only ICMP traffic to go through tunnel, and everything else go default interface? I try doing this in client computer: ip rule add fwmark 200 table tunnel iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -p udp -j MARK --set-mark 200 But after doing this, my ping program will timeout (if I not doing 2 command above, and using ping -I gre1 ip instead, it will works). Later I want to do something else also, like only UDP port 53 through tunnel, etc. 3rd question, in client computer, I force one mysql program to listen on gre1 interface 192.168.168.2. In client computer, there's also one more public interface (IP 114.x.x.x)... How to forward traffic properly using iptables and route so mysql also respond a request coming from this 114.x.x.x public interface?

  Read the article

• Tips on setting up a virtual lab for self-learning networking topics

  - by Harry

  I'm trying to self-learn the following topics on Linux (preferably Fedora): Network programming (using sockets API), especially across proxies and firewalls Proxies (of various kinds like transparent, http, socks...), Firewalls (iptables) and 'basic' Linux security SNAT, DNAT Network admininstration power tools: nc, socat (with all its options), ssh, openssl, etc etc. Now, I know that, ideally, it would be best if I had 'enough' number of physical nodes and physical network equipment (routers, switches, etc) for this self-learning exercise. But, obviously, don't have the budget or the physical space, nor want to be wasteful -- especially, when things could perhaps be simulated/emulated in a Linux environment. I have got one personal workstation, which is a single-homed Fedora desktop with 4GB memory, 200+ GB disk, and a 4-core CPU. I may be able to get 3 to 4 additional low-end Fedora workstations. But all of these -- including mine -- will always remain strictly behind our corporate firewall :-( Now, I know I could use VirtualBox-based virtual nodes, but don't know if there are any better alternatives disk- and memory- footprint-wise. Would you be able to give me some tips or suggestions on how to get started setting up this little budget- and space-constrained 'virtual lab' of mine? For example, how would I create virtual routers? Has someone attempted this sort of thing before: namely, creating a virtual network lab behind a corporate firewall for learning/development/testing purposes? I hope my question is not vague or too open-ended. Basically, right now, I don't know how to best leverage the Linux environment and the various 'goodies' it comes with, and buying physical devices only when it is absolutely necessary.

  Read the article

• Iptables - Redirect outbound traffic on a port to inbound traffic on 127.0.0.1

  - by GoldenNewby

  I will be awarding a +100 bounty to the correct answer once it is available in 48 hours Is there a way to redirect traffic set to go out of the server to another IP, back to the server on localhost (preferably as if it was coming from the original destination)? I'd basically like to be able to set up my own software that listens on say, port 80, and receives traffic that was sent to say, 1.2.3.4. So as an example with some code. Here would be the server: my $server = IO::Socket::INET->new( LocalAddr => '127.0.0.1', LocalPort => '80', Listen => 128, ); And that would receive traffic from the following client: my $client = IO::Socket::INET->new( PeerAddr => 'google.com', PeerPort => '80', ) So rather than having the client be connecting to google.com, it would be connecting to the server I have listening on localhost for that same server. My intention is to use this to catch malware connecting to remote hosts. I don't specifically need the traffic to be redirected to 127.0.0.1, but it needs to be redirected to an IP the same machine can listen to. Edit: I've tried the following, and it doesn't work-- echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 127.0.0.1:80 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE

  Read the article

• openvpn& iptables -- portforwarding and gateway

  - by Smith.Lai

  The problem is similar to this scenario: iptables rule still take effect after deleted Scenario: There are several clients(C1~C10) providing some services, such as SSH,HTTP..... The clients are actually a personal computer behind NAT. Their IP might be 192.168.0.x For easily access these machines through internet, I built a OpenVPN server(S1). All the C1~C10 connect to S1 with VPN address 10.8.0.x If A user(U1) wanna access C1 SSH through internet, he can connect to S1 with port "55555", and S1 port forward 55555 to 10.8.0.6:22 echo 1 /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 55555 -j DNAT --to-destination 10.8.0.6:22 It works well until I mark the following in the openvpn server.conf: I marked this because I think this will make all connection go through S1 ;push "redirect-gateway" |-------(NAT)--------| (C1)--| (INTERNET)----(U1) |-----(VPN)----(S1)--| The C1~C10 have their own path to access internet resource through NAT . The server loading would be heavy if all C1~C10 connection go through S1 (for example, C1 is sending data to C2, or C1 is downloading data from a FTP site). Is there a way to solve this quandary?

  Read the article

• Internet slowed down because of SQUID Server setup

  - by Ranjith Kumar

  Recently I have setup a squid server for our office. I have computer (A) with two ethernet cards, one for internet and the second one for local networkIt has Ubuntu server OS with squid-server and dhcp3-server installedI have added few iptable rules to work like a router and redirect all http traffic to 3128 port This link is my reference. Everything worked fine for 2 days. All of a sudden internet speed went down drastically. When I connected the internet cable to my laptop to test the internet speed it was fine. Again when I reconnected it back to computer A everything was normal. This happened 4 times in a week. Could anyone here please help me why the internet speed is going down and it becomes normal when I reconnect the cable. EDIT: Rebooting the system (computer A) didn't make a difference. I have changed iptables so that http traffic doesn't redirect to 3128 port any further, still no change in the internet speed. I think the problem is not with squid but with something else. Here are my iptable rules SQUID_SERVER="10.1.1.1" INTERNET="eth1" LAN_IN="eth0" SQUID_PORT="3128" PROXYSERVERS=(Atlanta Baltimore Boston Chicago Dallas Denver Houston KansasCity LosAngeles Miami NewYork Philadelphia Phoenix SanAntonio SanDiego SanJose Seattle Washington) SERVERLEN=${#PROXYSERVERS[*]} I=0 iptables -F iptables -X iptables -t nat -F iptables -t nat -X iptables -t mangle -F iptables -t mangle -X modprobe ip_conntrack modprobe ip_conntrack_ftp echo 1 /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward iptables -P INPUT DROP iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -o lo -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i $INTERNET -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables --table nat --append POSTROUTING --out-interface $INTERNET -j MASQUERADE iptables --append FORWARD --in-interface $LAN_IN -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i $LAN_IN -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -o $LAN_IN -j ACCEPT while [ $I -lt $SERVERLEN ]; do iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i $LAN_IN -p tcp -d ${PROXYSERVERS[$I]}.wonderproxy.com --dport 80 -j ACCEPT let I++ done iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i $LAN_IN -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to $SQUID_SERVER:$SQUID_PORT iptables -A INPUT --protocol tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT --protocol tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT --protocol tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -j LOG iptables -A INPUT -j DROP

  Read the article

• make local only daemon listening on different interface (using iptables port forwarding)?

  - by UniIsland

  i have a daemon program which listens on 127.0.0.1:8000. i need to access it when i connect to my box with vpn. so i want it to listen on the ppp0 interface too. i've tried the "ssh -L" method. it works, but i don't think it's the right way to do that, having an extra ssh process running in the background. i tried the "netcat" method. it exits when the connection is closed. so not a valid way for "listening". i also tried several iptables rules. none of them worked. i'm not listing here all the rules i've used. iptables -A FORWARD -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i ppp+ -p tcp --dport 8000 -j DNAT --to-destination 127.0.0.1:8000 the above ruleset doesn't work. i have net.ipv4.ip_forward set to 1. anyone knows how to redirect traffic from ppp interface to lo? say, listen on "192.168.45.1:8000 (ppp0)" as well as "127.0.0.1:8000 (lo)" there's no need to alter the port. thanx

  Read the article

• iptables secure squid proxy

  - by Lytithwyn

  I have a setup where my incoming internet connection feeds into a squid proxy/caching server, and from there into my local wireless router. On the wan side of the proxy server, I have eth0 with address 208.78.∗∗∗.∗∗∗ On the lan side of the proxy server, I have eth1 with address 192.168.2.1 Traffic from my lan gets forwarded through the proxy transparently to the internet via the following rules. Note that traffic from the squid server itself is also routed through the proxy/cache, and this is on purpose: # iptables forwarding iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -s 192.168.2.0/24 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A POSTROUTING -t nat -j MASQUERADE # iptables for squid transparent proxy iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.1:3128 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-port 3128 How can I set up iptables to block any connections made to my server from the outside, while not blocking anything initiated from the inside? I have tried doing: iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -s 192.168.2.0/24 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -j REJECT But this blocks everything. I have also tried reversing the order of those commands in case I got that part wrong, but that didn't help. I guess I don't fully understand everything about iptables. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Is iptable capable of this or should I go with mod_proxy?

  - by Jesper

  I'm trying to configure my network to receive an incoming connection on one device and then redirect it to another device on a specific port. Right now I'm on about port 80 and a device running apache. The problem I'm facing is that when the forwarding is done it also sets the source ip to the first device instead of the source ip the user that connects to the service has. Let me illustrate it: [Internet User] = 7.7.7.7 connects to [Device 1] = 1.1.1.1:80 [Device 1] forwards it to [Device 2] = 1.1.1.2:80 [Device 2] outputs response that [Internet User] sees So on [Device 2] I will naturally see [Device 1]s IP in the logs, but I wanna see if there is a way to connect the internet user through [Device 1] to [Device 2] while seeing the real source IP in the logs on [Device 2]. Is that possible? My rule-set looks like this at the moment: (on Device 1) iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 80 --to-destination 1.1.1.2:80 iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING -j SNAT -p tcp -d 1.1.1.2 --to-source 1.1.1.1 On [Device 2] it accepts all incoming on port 80 from [Device 1] as well as accepts all related and established connections. So, would there be any way to get the real source onto [Device 2]? Let me know if you need more information!

  Read the article

• Virtualbox port forwarding with iptables

  - by jverdeyen

  I'm using a virtualmachine (virtualbox) as mailserver. The host is an Ubuntu 12.04 and the guest is an Ubuntu 10.04 system. At first I forwarded port 25 to 2550 on the host and added a port forward rule in VirtualBox from 2550 to 25 on the guest. This works for all ports needed for the mailserver. The guest has a host only connection and a NAT (with the port-forwarding). My mailserver was receiving and sending mail properly. But all connections are comming from the virtualbox internal ip, so every host connection is allowed, and that's not what I want. So.. I'm trying to skip the VirtualBox forwarding part and just forward port 25 to my host only ip of the guest system. I used these rules: iptables -F iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT iptables -t nat -P PREROUTING ACCEPT iptables -t nat -P POSTROUTING ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT --protocol tcp --dport 25 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -s 192.168.99.0/24 -i vboxnet0 -j ACCEPT echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp -i eth0 -d xxx.host.ip.xxx --dport 25 -j DNAT --to 192.168.99.105:25 iptables -A FORWARD -s 192.168.99.0/24 -i vboxnet0 -p tcp --dport 25 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.99.0 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -L -n But after these changes I still can't connect with a simple telnet. (Which was possible with my first solution). The guest machine doesn't have any firewall. I only have one network interface on the host (eth0) and a host interface (vboxnet0). Any suggestions? Or should I go back to my old solution (which I don't really like). Edit: bridge mode isn't an option, I have only on IP available for the moment. Thanks!

  Read the article

• IP to IP forwarding with iptables [centos]

  - by FunkyChicken

  I have 2 servers. Server 1 with ip 1.1.1.1 and server 2 with ip 2.2.2.2 My domain example.com points to 1.1.1.1 at the moment, but very soon I'm going to switch to ip 2.2.2.2. I have already setup a low TTL for domain example.com, but some people will still hit the old ip a after I change the ip address of the domain. Now both machines run centos 5.8 with iptables and nginx as a webserver. I want to forward all traffic that still hits server 1.1.1.1 to 2.2.2.2 so there won't be any downtime. Now I found this tutorial: http://www.debuntu.org/how-to-redirecting-network-traffic-a-new-ip-using-iptables but I cannot seem to get it working. I have enabled ip forwarding: echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward After that I ran these 2 commands: /sbin/iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -s 1.1.1.1 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 2.2.2.2:80 /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE But when I load http://1.1.1.1 in my browser, I still get the pages hosted on 1.1.1.1 and not the content from 2.2.2.2. What am I doing wrong?

  Read the article

• Can I use iptables on my Varnish server to forward HTTPS traffic to a specific server?

  - by Dylan Beattie

  We use Varnish as our front-end web cache and load balancer, so we have a Linux server in our development environment, running Varnish with some basic caching and load-balancing rules across a pair of Windows 2008 IIS web servers. We have a wildcard DNS rule that points *.development at this Varnish box, so we can browse http://www.mysite.com.development, http://www.othersite.com.development, etc. The problem is that since Varnish can't handle HTTPS traffic, we can't access https://www.mysite.com.development/ For dev/testing, we don't need any acceleration or load-balancing - all I need is to tell this box to act as a dumb proxy and forward any incoming requests on port 443 to a specific IIS server. I suspect iptables may offer a solution but it's been a long while since I wrote an iptables rule. Some initial hacking has got me as far as iptables -F iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --sport 443 -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 443 -j DNAT --to 10.0.0.241:443 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p tcp -d 10.0.0.241 --dport 443 -j MASQUERADE iptables -A INPUT -j LOG --log-level 4 --log-prefix 'PreRouting ' iptables -A OUTPUT -j LOG --log-level 4 --log-prefix 'PostRouting ' iptables-save > /etc/iptables.rules (where 10.0.0.241 is the IIS box hosting the HTTPS website), but this doesn't appear to be working. To clarify - I realize there's security implications about HTTPS proxying/caching - all I'm looking for is completely transparent IP traffic forwarding. I don't need to decrypt, cache or inspect any of the packets; I just want anything on port 443 to flow through the Linux box to the IIS box behind it as though the Linux box wasn't even there. Any help gratefully received... EDIT: Included full iptables config script.

  Read the article

• IPTABLE & IP-routed netwok solution for HOST net and VM's subnet

  - by Daniel

  I've got ProxmoxVE2.1 ruled KVM node on Debian and bunch of VM's guests machine. That is how my networking looks like: # network interface settings auto lo iface lo inet loopback # device: eth0 auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 175.219.59.209 gateway 175.219.59.193 netmask 255.255.255.224 post-up echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth0/proxy_arp And I've got two working subnet solution auto vmbr0 iface vmbr0 inet static address 10.10.0.1 netmask 255.255.0.0 bridge_ports none bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 post-up ip route add 10.10.0.1/24 dev vmbr0 This way I can reach internet, to resolve outside hosts, update and download everything I need but can't reach one guest VM out of any other VM's inside my network. The second solution allows me to communicate between VM's: auto vmbr1 iface vmbr1 inet static address 10.10.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports none bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 post-up echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward post-up iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s '10.10.0.0/24' -o vmbr1 -j MASQUERADE post-down iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -s '10.10.0.0/24' -o vmbr1 -j MASQUERADE I can even NAT internal addresses: -t nat -I PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 789 -j DNAT --to-destination 10.10.0.220:345 My inexperienced mind is ready to double VM's net adapters: one for the first solution and another - for second (with slightly different adresses) but I'm pretty sure that it's a dumb way to resolve the problem and everything can be resolved via iptables/ip route rules that I can't create. I've tried a dozen of "wizard manuals" and "howto's" to mix both solution but without success. Looking for an advice (and good reading links for networking begginers).

  Read the article

• IPTables forward from only one ip on my server

  - by user1307079

  I was able to get my server to forward connections on a certain port to a different IP, but when I add -d to specify an IP to froward from, It does not work. This is what I am trying, iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -d 173.208.230.107 -p tcp --dport 80 iptables -t nat -nvL-j DNAT --to-destination 38.105.20.226:80. It works fine without the -d. Here is my ifconfig dump: em1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:D1:ED:D0:54 inet addr:173.208.230.106 Bcast:173.208.230.111 Mask:255.255.255.248 inet6 addr: fe80::2a0:d1ff:feed:d054/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:100058 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:18941701 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:12779711 (12.1 MiB) TX bytes:825498499 (787.2 MiB) Memory:fbde0000-fbe00000 em1:9 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:D1:ED:D0:54 inet addr:173.208.230.107 Bcast:173.208.230.111 Mask:255.255.255.248 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 Memory:fbde0000-fbe00000 em1:10 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:D1:ED:D0:54 inet addr:173.208.230.108 Bcast:173.208.230.111 Mask:255.255.255.248 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 Memory:fbde0000-fbe00000 em1:11 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:D1:ED:D0:54 inet addr:173.208.230.109 Bcast:173.208.230.111 Mask:255.255.255.248 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 Memory:fbde0000-fbe00000 em1:12 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:D1:ED:D0:54 inet addr:173.208.230.110 Bcast:173.208.230.111 Mask:255.255.255.248 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 Memory:fbde0000-fbe00000 lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)

  Read the article

• NAT via iptables and virtual interface

  - by Alex

  I'm trying to implement the following scenario: One VM-host, multiple guest VMs, each one gets its own IP-address (and domain). Our server has only one physical interface, so the intended use is to add virtual interfaces on eth0. To complicate our situation the provider uses port-security on their switches, so I can't run the guest interfaces in bridged mode, because then the switch detects a "spoofed" MAC-address and kills the interface (permanently, forcing me to call the support, which I'm sure will get them a little bit angry the third time ;) ). My first guess was to use iptables and NAT to forward all packages from one virtual interface to another one, but iptables doesn't seem to like virtual interfaces (at least I can't get it to work properly). So my second guess is to use the source IP of the packages to the public interface. Let's assume libvirt creates a virbr0-network with 192.168.100.0/24 and the guest uses 192.168.100.2 as IP-address. This is what I tried to use: iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING --src public_ip_on_eth0:0 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.100.2:80 That doesn't give me the intended results either (accessing the server times out). Is there a way to do what I'm trying to do, or even to route all traffic to a certain IP on a virtual interface to the VM's device?

  Read the article

• Why is this iptables rule that does port forwarding not working?

  - by videoguy

  I have a server bound to localhost:7060. It is using ipv6 socket instead of ipv4. Below is netstat outout. # netstat -an Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address State tcp 0 0 10.200.32.98:1720 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:4122 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:4123 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN tcp 0 0 127.0.0.1:4123 127.0.0.1:43051 ESTABLISHED tcp 0 0 10.200.32.98:5555 10.200.32.44:53162 ESTABLISHED tcp6 0 0 :::5060 :::* LISTEN tcp6 0 0 ::ffff:127.0.0.1:7060 :::* LISTEN tcp6 0 0 :::23 :::* LISTEN tcp6 0 0 ::ffff:10.200.32.98:23 ::ffff:10.200.32.142:43505 ESTABLISHED tcp6 0 0 ::ffff:127.0.0.1:43051 ::ffff:127.0.0.1:4123 ESTABLISHED tcp6 0 0 ::ffff:10.200.32.98:23 ::ffff:10.200.32.44:53195 ESTABLISHED udp6 0 0 :::5060 :::* CLOSE # I want to setup a port forwarding rule that accepts connections on port 24 (on all interfaces loopback as well as eth0) and forward the data to localhost:7060. This is how I am setting up the iptables rule: iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 24 -j DNAT --to 127.0.0.1:7060** It is not working. When I telnet from different box, I see the following $telnet 10.200.32.98 24 Trying 10.200.32.98... If I change the server to bind to *:7060 and set the following rule, it seems to work fine. iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 24 -j REDIRECT --to-port 7060 But that will make my server available on WAN interface which I don't like. I feel it had something to do with ipv6 socket (tcp6 line in netstat output). This whole thing is done on an Android device with custom built Android platform image. How do I get this working?

  Read the article

• linux networking: how to redirect incoming connections from old server to new server?

  - by aliz

  hi I'm in the process of moving my old server to a new server, but i will keep the old server running for database replication and load balancing, etc. each server has a separate internet connection with a static ip, and they are connected through a local Ethernet connection. I've got Ubuntu 8.04 32-bit running on old server and Debian 6.0 64-bit on new one. shorewall firewall is installed on both servers. there are some outdoor devices which are periodically sending data to port 43597 for old server IP address. I can run multiple instances of the network service which is responsible for receiving data from devices on a server but on different ports. here's the question: how can I run the service on new server and have connections coming to old server redirected to it, and new devices can still connect to new server's IP address preferably on the same port and same service? until all devices get updated to send to new server. I've tried a shorewall DNAT rule, but seems like new server's default route should be changed to ethernet connection, which breaks other things. I also found about redir utility, but still haven't tried it. is there any best practice or simple solution for such a scenario, i'm not aware of? thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• iptables, forward traffic for ip not active on the host itself

  - by gucki

  I have kvm guest which's netword card is conntected to the host using a tap device. The tap device is part of a bridge on the host together with eth0 so it can access the public network. So far everything works, the guest can access the public network and it can be accessed from the public network. Now the kvm process on the host provides a vnc server for the guest which listens on 127.0.0.1:5901 on the host. Is there any way to make this vnc server accessible by the ip address which the guest is using (ex. 192.168.0.249), without interrupting the guest from using the same ip (port 5901 is not used by the guest)? It should also work when the guest is not using any ip address at all. So basically I just want to fake IP xx is on the host and only answer/ forward traffic to port 5901 to the host itself. I tried using this NAT rule on the host, but it doesn't work. Ip forwarding is enabled at the host. iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dst 192.168.0.249 --dport 5901 -j DNAT --to-destination 127.0.0.1:5901 I assume this is because the IP 192.168.0.249 is not not bound to any interfaces and so no ARP requests for it get answered and so no packets for this IP arrive at the host. How can make it work? :)

  Read the article

• IPTables Reroute SSH based on Connection string?

  - by senrabdet

  We are using a cloud server (Debian Squeeze) where public ports on a public IP route traffic to internal servers. We are looking for a way to use IPTables and ssh where based on some part of the ssh connection string (or something along these lines) iptables will reroute the ssh connection to the "right" internal server. This would allow us to use one common public port, and then re-route ssh connections to individual servers. So, for example we hope to do something like the following: user issues ssh connection (public key encryption) such as ssh -X -v -p xxx [email protected] but maybe adds something into the string for iptables to use iptables uses some part of that string or some means to re-route the connection to an internal server using something like iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING ! -s xxx.xxx.xxx.0/24 -m tcp -p tcp --dport $EXTPORT -j DNAT --to-destination $HOST:$INTPORT ....where $HOST is the internal ip of a server, $EXTPORT is the common public facing port and $INTPORT is the internal server port. It appears that the "string" aspect of iptables does not do what we want. We can currently route based on the IP table syntax we're using, but rely on having a separate public port for each server and are hoping to use one common public port and then re-route to specific internal servers based on some part of the ssh connection string or some other means. Any suggestions? Thanks!

  Read the article

• make local only daemon listening on different interface (using iptables port forwarding)?

  - by UniIsland

  i have a daemon program which listens on 127.0.0.1:8000. i need to access it when i connect to my box with vpn. so i want it to listen on the ppp0 interface too. i've tried the "ssh -L" method. it works, but i don't think it's the right way to do that, having an extra ssh process running in the background. i tried the "netcat" method. it exits when the connection is closed. so not a valid way for "listening". i also tried several iptables rules. none of them worked. i'm not listing here all the rules i've used. iptables -A FORWARD -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i ppp+ -p tcp --dport 8000 -j DNAT --to-destination 127.0.0.1:8000 the above ruleset doesn't work. i have net.ipv4.ip_forward set to 1. anyone knows how to redirect traffic from ppp interface to lo? say, listen on "192.168.45.1:8000 (ppp0)" as well as "127.0.0.1:8000 (lo)" there's no need to alter the port. thanx

  Read the article

• Squid 2.7.STABLE3-4.1 as a transparent proxy on Ubuntu Server 9.04

  - by E3 Group

  Can't get this to work at all! I'm trying to get this linux box to act as a transparent proxy and, with the help of DHCP, force everyone on the network to gate into the proxy. I have two ethernet connections, both to the same switch. And I'm trying to get 192.168.1.234 to become the default gateway. The actual WAN connection is to a gateway 192.168.1.1. eth0 is 192.168.1.234 eth1 is 192.168.1.2 Effectively I'm trying to make eth0 a LAN only interface and eth1 a WAN interface. I've oi should set the gateway for eth1 to point to 192.168.1.234 my squid.conf file has the following directives added at the bottom: nly set eth0 to have a gateway address in /etc/network/interfaces I'm not sure whether http_port 3128 transparent acl lan src 192.168.1.0/24 acl lh src 127.0.0.1/255.255.255.0 http_access allow lan http_access allow lh i've added the following routing commands: iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.1.2:3128 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 3128 I set a computer with TCP settings 192.168.1.234 as the gateway and opened up google.com, but it comes up with a request error. Any ideas why this isn't working? :( Been searching continuously for a solution to no avail. ----------------------------- EDIT ------------------------------- Managed to get it to route properly to the squid, here's the error I get in the browser: ERROR The requested URL could not be retrieved While trying to process the request: GET / HTTP/1.1 Host: www.google.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.2) Gecko/20090729 Firefox/3.5.2 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: en-gb,en;q=0.5 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Keep-Alive: 300 Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0 The following error was encountered: * Invalid Request Some aspect of the HTTP Request is invalid. Possible problems: * Missing or unknown request method * Missing URL * Missing HTTP Identifier (HTTP/1.0) * Request is too large * Content-Length missing for POST or PUT requests * Illegal character in hostname; underscores are not allowed Your cache administrator is webmaster. Generated Mon, 26 Oct 2009 03:41:15 GMT by mjolnir.lloydharrington.local (squid/2.7.STABLE3)

  Read the article

• iptables (NAT/PAT) setup for SSH & Samba

  - by IanVaughan

  I need to access a Linux box via SSH & Samba that is hidden/connected behind another one. Setup :- A switch B C |----| |---| |----| |----| |eth0|----| |----|eth0| | | |----| |---| |eth1|----|eth1| |----| |----| Eg, SSH/Samba from A to C How does one go about this? I was thinking that it cannot be done via IP alone? Or can it? Could B say "hi on eth0, if your looking for 192.168.0.2, its here on eth1"? Is this NAT? This is a large private network, so what about if another PC has that IP?! More likely it would be PAT? A would say "hi 192.168.109.15:1234" B would say "hi on eth0, traffic for port 1234 goes on here eth1" How could that be done? And would the SSH/Samba demons see the correct packet header info and work?? IP info :- A - eth0 - 192.168.109.2 B - eth0 - B1 = 192.168.109.15 B2 = 172.24.40.130 - eth1 - 192.168.0.1 C - eth1 - 192.168.0.2 A, B & C are RHEL (RedHat) But Windows computers can be connected to the switch. I configured the 192.168.0.* IPs, they are changeable. Update after response from Eddie Few problems (and Machines' B IP is different!) From A :- ssh 172.24.40.130 works ok, (can get to B2) but ssh 172.24.40.130 -p 2022 -vv times out with :- OpenSSH_4.3p2, OpenSSL 0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 01 Jul 2008 debug1: Reading configuration data /etc/ssh/ssh_config debug1: Applying options for * debug2: ssh_connect: needpriv 0 debug1: Connecting to 172.24.40.130 [172.24.40.130] port 2022. ...wait ages... debug1: connect to address 172.24.40.130 port 2022: Connection timed out ssh: connect to host 172.24.40.130 port 2022: Connection timed out From B2 :- $ service iptables status Table: filter Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) num target prot opt source destination Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) num target prot opt source destination 1 ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.0.2 tcp dpt:22 Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) num target prot opt source destination Table: nat Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT) num target prot opt source destination 1 DNAT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:2022 to:192.168.0.2:22 Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT) num target prot opt source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) num target prot opt source destination And ssh from B2 to C works fine :- $ ssh 192.168.0.2 Route info :- $ route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 172.24.40.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 default 172.24.40.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 $ ip route 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.1 172.24.40.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 172.24.40.130 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth1 scope link default via 172.24.40.1 dev eth0 So I just dont know why the port forward doesnt work from A to B2?

  Read the article

• Squid 2.7.STABLE3-4.1 as a transparent proxy on Ubuntu Server 9.04

  - by LOGIC9

  Can't get this to work at all! I'm trying to get this linux box to act as a transparent proxy and, with the help of DHCP, force everyone on the network to gate into the proxy. I have two ethernet connections, both to the same switch. And I'm trying to get 192.168.1.234 to become the default gateway. The actual WAN connection is to a gateway 192.168.1.1. eth0 is 192.168.1.234 eth1 is 192.168.1.2 Effectively I'm trying to make eth0 a LAN only interface and eth1 a WAN interface. I've oi should set the gateway for eth1 to point to 192.168.1.234 my squid.conf file has the following directives added at the bottom: nly set eth0 to have a gateway address in /etc/network/interfaces I'm not sure whether http_port 3128 transparent acl lan src 192.168.1.0/24 acl lh src 127.0.0.1/255.255.255.0 http_access allow lan http_access allow lh i've added the following routing commands: iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.1.2:3128 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 3128 I set a computer with TCP settings 192.168.1.234 as the gateway and opened up google.com, but it comes up with a request error. Any ideas why this isn't working? :( Been searching continuously for a solution to no avail. ----------------------------- EDIT ------------------------------- Managed to get it to route properly to the squid, here's the error I get in the browser: ERROR The requested URL could not be retrieved While trying to process the request: GET / HTTP/1.1 Host: www.google.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.2) Gecko/20090729 Firefox/3.5.2 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: en-gb,en;q=0.5 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Keep-Alive: 300 Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0 The following error was encountered: * Invalid Request Some aspect of the HTTP Request is invalid. Possible problems: * Missing or unknown request method * Missing URL * Missing HTTP Identifier (HTTP/1.0) * Request is too large * Content-Length missing for POST or PUT requests * Illegal character in hostname; underscores are not allowed Your cache administrator is webmaster. Generated Mon, 26 Oct 2009 03:41:15 GMT by mjolnir.lloydharrington.local (squid/2.7.STABLE3)

  Read the article

• Making hosts accessible between LAN subnets

  - by nixnotwin

  I have two inerfaces on my router with tomato firmwre: br0 and vlan4. br0 is on 192.168.0.0/16 subnet and vlan4 on 10.0.1.0/24 subnet. As I don't want the different network services on br0 available on vlan4, I have added this firewall rule: iptables -I INPUT -i vlan4 -j ACCEPT; iptables -I FORWARD -i vlan4 -o vlan2 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT; iptables -I FORWARD -i br0 -o vlan4 -j DROP; vlan2 is my WAN (internet acess). The issue that I want to solve is that I want to make one host from 192.168.0.0/16 network (br0), which has ip 192.168.0.50, available on vlan4 (10.0.1.0/24). Only that host should be available on vlan4 (and all other hosts on br0 should be inaccessible). What firewall rules can be used to do it? Edit 1: Output of iptables -nvL FORWARD: Chain FORWARD (policy DROP 4 packets, 204 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 0 0 ACCEPT all -- vlan4 192.168.0.50 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 0 0 ACCEPT all -- vlan4 ppp0 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state NEW 229 13483 ACCEPT all -- vlan4 vlan2 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state NEW 0 0 DROP all -- br0 vlan3 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 0 0 ACCEPT all -- vlan3 ppp0 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state NEW 67 3405 ACCEPT all -- vlan3 vlan2 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state NEW 0 0 ACCEPT all -- br0 br0 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 34 1360 DROP all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state INVALID 758 40580 TCPMSS tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp flags:0x06/0x02 TCPMSS clamp to PMTU 11781 2111K restrict all -- * vlan2 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 26837 19M ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED 0 0 wanin all -- vlan2 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 287 15927 wanout all -- * vlan2 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 283 15723 ACCEPT all -- br0 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 0 0 upnp all -- vlan2 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 Output of iptables -t nat -nvL PREROUTING: Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 6887 packets, 526K bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 855 83626 WANPREROUTING all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 222.228.137.223 0 0 DROP all -- vlan2 * 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.0.0/16 0 0 DNAT udp -- * * 192.168.0.0/16 !192.168.0.0/16 udp dpt:53 to:192.168.0.1

  Read the article

• Mikrotik and NAT/Routing issue

  - by arul

  I have basic NAT/Routing problem with Mikrotik RB750 that I've been unable to solve over the past days. From our ISP we have 26 IP addresses: 10.10.10.192/27, with 10.10.10.193 being the gateway and 10.10.10.194 the first available IP. What I need is that everything connected to ether2 gets a public IP from the DHCP server, and everything connected to ether3 gets a local IP from another DHCP (192.168.100.0/24). All clients should have internet access (I'll figure out bandwidth throttling later) and optimally just 'see' each other (all boxes are Win7, I guess this can ultimately be handled with VPN). Here is my setup: ether1 (10.10.10.194) is connected directly to ISP. 20 clients connected to ether2(10.10.10.195), and another 20 to ether3(10.10.10.196) (both through same 24 port switches). This is my setup, which doesn't work, all 20 clients from ether2 can access the internet, though all comm. seems to come from 10.10.10.194 (is this due to the masquerade on ether1?), and ether3 can't access the internet at all. I think that I need to masquerade ether3, and SNAT/DNAT or NETMAP ether2, but that doesn't work either, I guess that I need to somehow 'wire' both ether2+3 to ether1. Address list: # ADDRESS NETWORK INTERFACE 0 ;;; public 10.10.10.194/32 10.10.10.192 ether1-gateway 1 ;;; inner DHCP 192.168.100.0/24 192.168.100.0 ether3-private 2 ;;; public 10.10.10.195/32 10.10.10.192 ether2-pub 3 ;;; public 10.10.10.196/32 10.10.10.192 ether3-private NAT 0 ;;; ether3 nat chain=srcnat action=src-nat to-addresses=10.10.10.196 src-address=192.168.100.0/24 out-interface=ether3-private 1 ;;; ether3 nat chain=dstnat action=dst-nat to-addresses=192.168.100.0/24 in-interface=ether3-private 2 ;;; ether1 masquerade chain=srcnat action=masquerade to-addresses=10.10.10.194 out-interface=ether1-gateway Routes: # DST-ADDRESS PREF-SRC GATEWAY DISTANCE 0 A S 0.0.0.0/0 ether1-gateway 1 2 A S 10.10.10.192/27 10.10.10.195 ether2-pub 1 3 ADC 10.10.10.192/32 10.10.10.195 ether2-pub 0 ether1-gateway ether3-private 4 ADC 192.168.100.0/24 192.168.100.0 ether3-private 0 IP Pools: # NAME RANGES 0 public-pool 10.10.10.201-10.10.10.220 1 private-pool 192.168.100.2-192.168.100.254 DHCP configs: # NAME INTERFACE RELAY ADDRESS-POOL LEASE-TIME ADD-ARP 0 public-dhcp ether2-pub public-pool 3d 1 private-dhcp ether3-private private-pool 3d Thanks!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >