-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
fix nat table by getting the fitting device for an address #9552
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
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -554,7 +554,7 @@ def fw_vpcrouter(self): | |
| if self.address["source_nat"]: | ||
| self.fw.append(["nat", "front", | ||
| "-A POSTROUTING -o %s -j SNAT --to-source %s" % | ||
| (self.dev, self.address['public_ip'])]) | ||
| (self.address['device'], self.address['public_ip'])]) | ||
| if self.get_gateway() == self.get_ip_address(): | ||
| for inf, addresses in self.config.address().dbag.iteritems(): | ||
| if not inf.startswith("eth"): | ||
|
|
@@ -693,11 +693,8 @@ def post_config_change(self, method): | |
| vpccidr = cmdline.get_vpccidr() | ||
| self.fw.append( | ||
| ["filter", 3, "-A FORWARD -s %s ! -d %s -j ACCEPT" % (vpccidr, vpccidr)]) | ||
| self.fw.append( | ||
| ["nat", "", "-A POSTROUTING -j SNAT -o %s --to-source %s" % (self.dev, self.address['public_ip'])]) | ||
| elif cmdline.get_source_nat_ip() and not self.is_private_gateway(): | ||
| self.fw.append( | ||
| ["nat", "", "-A POSTROUTING -j SNAT -o %s --to-source %s" % (self.dev, cmdline.get_source_nat_ip())]) | ||
| self.fw.append( | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. if there are multiple public ips (in multiple ranges), will there be same amount of rules ?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I am not sure I understand the question. I checked this in a lab env and the resulting nat table was exactly as described in the issue, with only the last line being different. Ar you considdering another configuration here @weizhouapache ?
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. for each public ip (and private gateway), there will be a rule below, right ?
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @DaanHoogland If I understand correctly, for the current changes , the rules are for example,
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'll verify that. Do you happen to know what condition to test for? I don't think the
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think the original issue does not exist in our lab (I can verify with infra). we can only verify the iptables rules in the VR
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. ok, I'll give it a try |
||
| ["nat", "", "-A POSTROUTING -j SNAT -o %s --to-source %s" % (self.dev, self.address['public_ip'])]) | ||
|
|
||
| def list(self): | ||
| self.iplist = {} | ||
|
|
||

Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.