LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: iptables and LVS

To: "Nielsen, Steve" <SNielsen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: iptables and LVS
Cc: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 00:32:51 +0300 (EEST)
        Hello,

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Nielsen, Steve wrote:

> I want to establish iptables rules which will do the following:
>
> 1. Disallow all new connections from the outside to the lvs box except for 
> traffic destined for the VIP/ports I have defined in LVS.
> 2. Allow inbound/outbound traffic for established/related connections on the 
> LVS box.
>
> So in a sense the lvs box is a "firewall" but only to protect itself.
>
> I have read the LVS HOW-TO section 17.1 which talks about running LVS and 
> netfilter together on the same box.  It mentions the ipvs_nfct module.  Do I 
> need to do this for this situation?  The HOW-TO is not very clear.  It 
> mentions on one hand in section 17.1 that you need the nfct module but then 
> at the end of 17.1 it says: "You can (and always have been able to) use 
> firewall rules that match by device, proto, port or IP, without using ipvs 
> netfilter connection tracking module, ipvs_nfct.".  So my question is when do 
> you need the module and when do you not need it?

        You need ipvs_nfct to support -m state iptables syntax. As you
know you do not need always -m state. That is the only functionality
provided from ipvs_nfct. It works in such cases:

- NAT: any kind of traffic including FTP-DATA
- DR/TUN: not for related connections (expectations), eg. FTP-DATA

        The HOWTO explains the worst case example, FTP with NAT:

17.5. LVS-NAT netfilter conntrack example with ftp

        Using 'modprobe ip_nat_ftp' is optional and ip_nat_ftp needs
fix:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-netdev&m=108220842129842&w=2

> Thanks,
> Steve

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>