On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 02:49:18PM +0000, Big Lebowski wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Oliver Peter <li...@peter.de.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 01:03:54PM +0000, Big Lebowski wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Oliver Peter <li...@peter.de.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > El duderino, > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:30:59PM +0000, Big Lebowski wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I am trying to set up a 11.0-R PF based NAT for group of jails that > > needs > > > > > to be able to talk to services on other jails, just as if they'd be > > > > clients > > > > > from outside of the network. Apparently, this is called 'NAT > > reflection' > > > > > and I was able to find examples for OpenBSD PF here: > > > > > https://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/rdr.html (bottom of the page). > > > > > > > > > > Obviously, their syntax doesn't work on FreeBSD PF, so how to > > achieve the > > > > > same thing? How to allow jails NAT'd on $ext_if (xn0) coming from > > > > > $jails_net (192.168.0.0/24 aliased on lo0) to talk to each other, > > via > > > > the > > > > > $ext_if external IP? > > > > > > > > We did something similar in a customer setup a while ago: > > > > > > > > nat on $int_if from $jail_host to any -> $int_ip > > > > rdr pass on $int_if proto { tcp, udp } from $jail_host to > > $ext_if > > > > port{ $service1, service2 } -> $int_lb > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Thanks for your response Olivier! Would you mind elaborating on it a bit > > > more? I don't understand what you're trying to achieve here, since the > > NAT > > > doesn't happen on $int_if (lo0) but instead on $ext_if (xn0). The $int_if > > > only holds the jail's IP addresses from the $jail_net range. How does > > that > > > compare? > > > > Ah, it could be that this is a bit different since you only have a single > > machine, our example was a gateway with two interfaces (ext/int) doing NAT > > for some machines behind. Since your packets are created on lo0 and > > routed to xn0 it might be different. > > Another idea would be to re-route the packets between the two interfaces: > > pass out quick on $ext_if route-to $int_if from ($int_if:network) > > to $ext_if:network > > > > This might interfere with your regular outgoing traffic; maybe the "to" > > part needs a bit tuning. Furthermore I'm not sure about the source > > addresses... We have this in production to route some DNS traffic via > > VPN. > > > > Split horizon DNS is no option? > > Sorry for not being very helpful. > > > No worries, you've been most helpful so far :) > > The host has two interfaces, I simply chose lo0 for jails, because I wasn't > aware it would matter, so, if needs be, I can migrate jails IP's from lo0 > to xn1 - would it make difference in that I'd now be able to implement the > reflection somehow, or would I need to get the jails out of the host > entirely and make the host to provide gatefway functionality only?
Well, you made me curious about this so I created two jails on a
11-RELEASE test machine with a single external address.
jail0 is on lo0
jail1 is on lo1
For outgoing service I have:
nat on em0 from lo0:network to any -> ($ext_if)
nat on em0 from lo1:network to any -> ($ext_if)
The interesting thing here is that /all/ traffic happens on lo0 - even for
jail1 which sits on lo1 only - which I don't understand.
Furthermore it seems that since the target machine is also the source
machine and does not need any routing the packets are not translated but
directly routed, I tested this with:
rdr pass on lo0 proto tcp from lo1:network to $ext_ip port 2224 ->
$jail0 port 22
jail0 only sees the internal IP since we do not route here.
I was thinking about a mixture of PF and IPFW but this is getting nasty
now.
--
Oliver PETER oli...@gfuzz.de 0x456D688F
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
