Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:02:13 +0100 (MET) | From | Jan Engelhardt <> | Subject | Re: 2.6 native IPsec implementation question |
| |
>1. Why IPsec in 2.6 doesn't uses separate interface ? >It makes impossible to implement firewall logic like this (or I'm >missing something): > >incoming from eth0 allow AH >incoming from eth0 allow ESP >incoming from eth0 allow udp 500 >incoming from eth0 allow udp 53 >incoming from eth0 allow ICMP related >incoming from eth0 deny all
iptables -A INPUT -N myipsec; iptables -A INPUT -j myipsec -i eth0 -m ah iptables -A INPUT -j myipsec -i eth0 -m esp iptables -A INPUT -j ACCEPT -i eth0 -p udp --dport 53 iptables -A INPUT -j ACCEPT -i eth0 -p udp --dport 500 iptables -A INPUT -j ACCEPT -i eth0 -p icmp -m state --state RELATED iptables -A INPUT -j REJECT -i eth0
>then set of filters restricting traffic incoming via IPsec for examle: >incoming from ipsec0 allow tcp 389 >incoming from ipsec0 allow ICMP related >incoming from ipsec0 deny all
iptables -A myipsec -j ACCEPT -p tcp --dport 389 iptables -A myipsec -j ACCEPT -p icmp -m state --state RELATED iptables -A myipsec -j REJECT
Maybe that solves it? (Not sure whether the myipsec chain works as thought.)
>2. Why IPsec in 2.6 doesn't creates entries in the route tables ?
Because it doesnot create a device ipsecN?
Jan Engelhardt -- Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung Am Fassberg, 37077 Göttingen, www.gwdg.de - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |