On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 12:00:47PM -0600, Mark Felder wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015, at 09:16, wishmaster wrote: > > > > --- Original message --- > > From: "Mark Felder" <f...@freebsd.org> > > Date: 1 December 2015, 17:05:35 > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015, at 02:02, wishmaster wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, Mark. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm hoping someone can explain what happened here and this isn't a > > > > > bug, > > > > > but if it is a bug I'll gladly open a PR. > > > > > > > > > > I noticed in my ipfw logs that I was getting a log of "DENY" entries > > > > > for > > > > > an NTP server > > > > > > > > > > Nov 30 13:35:16 gw kernel: ipfw: 4540 Deny UDP > > > > > [2604:a880:800:10::bc:c004]:123 [2001:470:1f11:1e8::2]:58285 in via > > > > > gif0 > > > > > > > > > > Strange... I looked at ntpq output and sure enough I was trying to > > > > > communicate with that server. But why was it getting blocked? I don't > > > > > have a rule to allow IPv4 input from source port 123. I expected IPFW > > > > > to > > > > > handle this for me. I know UDP is stateless, but firewalls are usually > > > > > able to "keep state" for UDP. I looked at my v4 rules which and I have > > > > > keep-state on there: > > > > > > > > > > # Allow all outgoing, skip to NAT > > > > > ###################################### > > > > > $cmd 01300 skipto 5000 tcp from any to any out via $pif $ks > > > > > $cmd 01310 skipto 5000 udp from any to any out via $pif $ks > > > > > $cmd 01320 skipto 5000 icmp from any to any out via $pif > > > > > ###################################### > > > > > > > > > > I noticed my outbound IPv6 didn't have $ks for udp, so I added it. > > > > > However, that had no effect. The solution was to add an incoming rule: > > > > > > > > > > $cmd 03755 allow udp from any to any src-port 123 in via $pif6 $ks > > > > > > > > > > This seems wrong. Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is your 5000 rule? > > > > > > > > > > $cmd 05000 nat 1 ip4 from any to any out via $pif > > > > Hey. As I understand, there is a problem in connection clients from Inet > > with your NTP server. If yes, why do you use NAT rule? > > > > > > That's the NAT rule for my home network for outbound IPv4. It's working > as expected. > > Outbound NTP traffic on high ports (not 123) works fine with IPv4. The > reply from the NTP server is allowed through, presumably from the > keep-state rule on outbound UDP traffic. > > Outbound NTP traffic on high ports with IPv6 is allowed outbound but the > replies denied inbound. This has been my source of confusion and concern > considering it should have been allowed by keep-state.
Have you looked at the ipfw state tables to see if a state is recorded? ipfw -d list I think Gary _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
