Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #1205 > unrolled thread

Is this a bridging scenario?

Started by	Al <bigal.nz@gmail.com>
First post	2012-03-24 15:55 -0700
Last post	2012-04-09 18:19 -0400
Articles	2 on this page of 22 — 4 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.networking

  Is this a bridging scenario? Al <bigal.nz@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 15:55 -0700
    Re: Is this a bridging scenario? Al <bigal.nz@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 15:57 -0700
    Re: Is this a bridging scenario? Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-03-25 09:26 +0200
      Re: Is this a bridging scenario? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2012-03-25 10:56 +0200
        Re: Is this a bridging scenario? Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-03-25 12:19 +0200
      Re: Is this a bridging scenario? Al <bigal.nz@gmail.com> - 2012-04-08 05:00 -0700
        Re: Is this a bridging scenario? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2012-04-08 14:20 +0200
          Re: Is this a bridging scenario? Al <bigal.nz@gmail.com> - 2012-04-08 06:10 -0700
            Re: Is this a bridging scenario? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2012-04-08 16:28 +0200
              Re: Is this a bridging scenario? Al <bigal.nz@gmail.com> - 2012-04-08 12:39 -0700
                Re: Is this a bridging scenario? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2012-04-08 22:32 +0200
                  Re: Is this a bridging scenario? Al <bigal.nz@gmail.com> - 2012-04-09 08:28 -0700
                    Re: Is this a bridging scenario? Scott Hemphill <hemphill@hemphills.net> - 2012-04-09 12:41 -0400
                      Re: Is this a bridging scenario? Al <bigal.nz@gmail.com> - 2012-04-09 11:52 -0700
                        Re: Is this a bridging scenario? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2012-04-09 21:09 +0200
                          Re: Is this a bridging scenario? Al <bigal.nz@gmail.com> - 2012-04-10 01:56 -0700
                            Re: Is this a bridging scenario? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2012-04-10 20:30 +0200
                              Re: Is this a bridging scenario? Al <bigal.nz@gmail.com> - 2012-04-10 16:30 -0700
                                Re: Is this a bridging scenario? Al <bigal.nz@gmail.com> - 2012-04-10 19:23 -0700
                              Re: Is this a bridging scenario? Al <bigal.nz@gmail.com> - 2012-04-10 22:54 -0700
                                Re: Is this a bridging scenario? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2012-04-11 09:33 +0200
                        Re: Is this a bridging scenario? Scott Hemphill <hemphill@hemphills.net> - 2012-04-09 18:19 -0400

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#1283

From	Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org>
Date	2012-04-11 09:33 +0200
Message-ID	<jm3c41$2bjl$1@saria.nerim.net>
In reply to	#1282

Al a écrit :
> Tcptrackoutput:
> 
> Client Server State Idle Speed
> 
> 118.92.xx.55:58674 192.168.1.71:80 RESET 1s 0 b/s
> 118.92.xx.55:58673 192.168.1.71:80 RESET 1s 0 b/s
> 118.92.xx.55:58676 192.168.1.71:80 RESET 1s 0 b/s

You wrote :
"I open port 5555 on the router and forward it to wlan0 (192.168.1.71)"

So I assumed that the connections would arrive at the Linux box on port
5555 :
"If the router redirects port 5555 to 192.168.1.71 without changing
the destination port"

But obviously they arrive on port 80, so you can ignore my rule and just
use the one you proposed :

iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i wlan0 -d 192.168.1.71 -p tcp --dport
80 -j DNAT --to 192.168.70.140

And make sure ip_forward is enabled.

> Someone suggested I might need to do something with conntracks?

No, unless you also have filtering rules.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1262

From	Scott Hemphill <hemphill@hemphills.net>
Date	2012-04-09 18:19 -0400
Message-ID	<m3hawsim4r.fsf@hemphills.net>
In reply to	#1257

Al <bigal.nz@gmail.com> writes:

> On Apr 10, 4:41 am, Scott Hemphill <hemph...@hemphills.net> wrote:
>> Al <bigal...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > On Apr 9, 8:32 am, Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-s...@plouf.fr.eu.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Al a écrit :
>>
>> >> > So what do you think the rules should look like?
>>
>> >> For a start, only the ones I mentionned in my previous reply.
>>
>> > Something is still screwy.
>>
>> > I have eth0 on;
>>
>> > auto lo
>> > iface lo inet loopback
>>
>> > auto eth0
>> > iface eth0 inet static
>> > address 192.168.70.121
>> > netmask 255.0.0.0
>> > network 192.168.70.0
>> > broadcast 192.168.70.255
>> > #gateway 192.168.2.254
>>
>> > #auto wlan0
>> > #iface wlan0 inet static
>> > #address 192.168.1.120
>> > #netmask 255.255.255.0
>> > #network 192.168.1.0
>> > #broadcast 192.168.1.255
>> > #gateway 192.168.1.254
>>
>> > And the camera should have a static of 192.168.70.140 - but for some
>> > reason when I ssh into the linux box from the net via wlan0 I cant
>> > ping the camera.
>>
>> > Any thoughts?
>>
>> Your netmask is wrong.  It should be:
>>
>> netmask 255.255.255.0
>>
>> Scott
>> --
>> Scott Hemphill  hemph...@alumni.caltech.edu
>> "This isn't flying.  This is falling, with style."  -- Buzz Lightyear
>
> I made that mask rather liberal in attempt to get into the camera.
> 255.255.255.0 doesnt work either.

Making the mask "liberal" doesn't work, since the kernel will mask
192.168.70.140 with 255.0.0.0 and get 192.0.0.0, and won't find routing
for that network.  You should show us what your rating table has in it.
("route -n" should do it.)

Scott
-- 
Scott Hemphill	hemphill@alumni.caltech.edu
"This isn't flying.  This is falling, with style."  -- Buzz Lightyear

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

csiph-web

Is this a bridging scenario?

Contents

#1283

#1262