Skip to main content

linux - When IP aliasing how does the OS determine which IP address will be used as source for outbound TCP/IP connections?



I have a server running Ubuntu Server with four IP addresses aliased on a single NIC.



eth0       192.168.1.100

eth0:0 192.168.1.101
eth0:1 192.168.1.102
eth0:2 192.168.1.103


(Using 192.168.x.x for sake of example, assume these are NAT-ed to a range of public IP addresses)



One of our clients publishes their inventory via FTP, so we log in nightly to download a large file from their server. Their firewall expects our (passive) FTP connection to be made from 192.168.1.100.



Given that my server logically has four IP addresses on a single adapter, how does the operating system determine which IP address is used as source for outbound TCP/IP connections?




Let's say I ssh into my server on 192.168.1.101 and run FTP interactively. Will the outbound TCP/IP connection use 192.168.1.101 because the OS knows that's the interface over which my shell is connected?



What if the FTP task is run non-interactively via a cron job where there is no shell?



As you can probably tell, this has me quite confused, so I hope my questions have at least
made sense.



Edit




To clarify why I'm asking -- I haven't made any changes to the routing table and it actually lists 'eth0' as the IFace for the 0.0.0.0 routes. However, all indications are that it is actually using eth0:0 as the source.



Destination    Gateway         Genmask         Flags Metric Ref    Use Iface
192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0


I can fiddle with the routing table or have our client change their firewall rules to get the behavior I need, but I'm trying to gain a little insight into how this works to know if there's a bug in the OS or just my naive understanding of how all the pieces fit together.



Thanks



Answer



By default, on Linux, if an interface has multiple addresses that are on different subnets, traffic destined for the respective subnets will have the proper source IP. That is, if eth0 has two addresses 192.168.1.1/24 and 10.1.1.1/8, then traffic to anything on the 10.0.0.0 subnet will have source 10.1.1.1, and traffic to anything on the 192.168.1.0 subnet will have source 192.168.1.1. You can also assign source addresses explicitly in this case by using the "src 1.2.3.4" option to "ip route".



In your case, though, all your addresses are on the same subnet, so the "primary" one (as revealed by "ip addr list dev eth0") is used as the source IP for traffic exiting on that interface. I think it's possible to control the source IPs in this case just using "ip route", but I've found it easier to use iptables to rewrite the source addresses for traffic of interest.



If you want to force a specific source address to be used for specific destinations, you can do it with a SNAT rule:



iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING -o eth0 -d dest-IP-or-net/mask -s primary-IP-of-eth0 -j SNAT --to-source desired-source-IP



So if your "primary" eth0 IP is 192.168.100.1, but you want traffic to 1.2.3.4 to have a source of 192.168.100.2, then do this:



iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING -o eth0 -d 1.2.3.4/0 -s 192.168.100.1 -j SNAT --to-source 192.168.100.2


Note that the "-s 192.168.100.1" is important: it prevents forwarded traffic's source addresses being rewritten by this rule.



If you are going to implement complex network configurations on Linux, you should read the Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic Control documentation, http://lartc.org


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able