-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 66
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Need to enable firewall-like features on the NAT64 #41
Comments
There's still some stuff to take care of, but I wanna merge first.
This is necessary so NAT64 happens after iptables does filtering. It's also needed so Jool catches local traffic, which is needed by local CLATs. As an added bonus, it invalidates issue #90. Woot! Progress so far, summary: - Issue #33: Done. - Issue #41: Done. - Issue #107: Done. - Issue #111: dhfelix is done, but haven't even started to review. - Issue #116: EAM done, moved from prerouting done, dummy interface done. Missing (off the top of my head): - Adapting the global packet processing pipeline for stateless mode. - Configuration options. - Review RFC 6145 and updaters. - Issue #120: Done. - Issue #121: Not done. Everything needs testing. There are known bugs with fragmentation.
The changes we planned proved to be insufficient. This will remain an open issue in Jool 3.3. This is another problem that would probably be naturally and indirectly fixed by turning Jool into a device driver. |
As I've mentioned before in e-mail, this isn't actually the case. Jool does steal the packet so that it doesn't traverse IPTables' So you can do stuff like this:
Another thing worth pointing out is that any marks set on the packet in the
If you don't want to use IPTables, there's also an alternate way you can block traffic using
Note that filtering using In summary I think this is more of a documentation issue, not a missing feature. At least I don't see any point in duplicating functionality provided by other parts of the kernel in Jool itself. |
OK, here's the status: As I said in this comment, I do not see any problems with filtering in mangle, but some iptables documentation does (apparently). I do not know the reasoning, so I will neither discourage nor encourage it. On the other hand, now that Jool can be enclosed in a namespace, filtering can be done in the forwarding chains. This might not look as clean as it could be, but is no different than if Jool were a device driver. So either way, it looks like this is no longer an issue. Closing. |
Test case ID: N/ADate: 2013/05/13
OS: N/A
Tester: -
Error module: filtering
Description: The user needs a way to define policies to control whether BIB and session entries are created or not. At this point, the module calls an empty function.
Observations: The RFC does not define the policies; they are expected to be user-defined. I imagine the NAT64 is supposed to work like iptables, in the sense that other kernel modules can be attached to it and apply logic.
Jool intercepts and steals packets before iptables filters, so there's no way to firewall translating traffic unless it is done by a separate, adjacent machine.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: