[SOLVED] Curious Floating Rules Behavior
-
The reason the packets are dropped in the first two examples is because your floating rule catches the traffic (actually the state creation) as it leaves the LAN interface OUTBOUND.
Cannot possibly be correct because the packet didnt "leave" the LAN at all - that was the whole point of the test. They "left" the OPT1 and matched the floating rule because it was OUTside relative to the interface.
-
Of course they didn't leave LAN. They were blocked by the firewall so the state was never created.
Let's get some terminology clear:
inside/outside
LAN/Trusted –- inside --- FIREWALL --- outside --- Internet/Untrusted
inbound (ingress) / outbound (egress)
inbound --->|
| Interface
outbound <-- -
Of course they didn't leave LAN. They were blocked by the firewall so the state was never created.
Let's get some terminology clear:
inside/outside
LAN/Trusted –- inside --- FIREWALL --- outside --- Internet/Untrusted
inbound (ingress) / outbound (egress)
inbound --->|
| Interface
outbound <--The drawing posted by johnpoz is spot on. However, it seems you guys both believe that "OUT" means "OUTbound" (or egress). "OUT" is the direction of packets relative to the interface, its is not "egress" at all.. So in my case, packets sent from the raspberry pi were OUTside relative to the LAN.
-
OUTSIDE is a location
OUTBOUND is a direction -
OUTSIDE is a location
OUTBOUND is a directionWhatever the case, "OUT" is neither egress traffic nor is it "OUTbound" traffic. It is traffic that is relative to the interface thats been selected. I agree with johnpoz's drawing 100%.
-
Exactly. You seem to confuse ingress/egress with inside/outside. That is only true when you are talking about the WAN interfaces.
Traffic from LAN hosts INGRESSES the firewall on its way INBOUND into the LAN interface. Reply traffic for those connections EGRESSES the LAN interface on its way back OUTBOUND to the LAN hosts - relative to the LAN interface.
The only problem here is your failure to properly comprehend these terms in English as they relate to common usage when describing firewall behavior.
There is nothing at all curious about the floating rule behavior you have described.
-
Exactly. You seem to confuse ingress/egress with inside/outside. That is only true when you are talking about the WAN interfaces.
The drawings and tests I performed are 100% on. The confusion regarding IN,OUT,ANY direction is because of people citing it OUT as OUTbound/egress traffic when it is not.
Traffic from LAN hosts INGRESSES the firewall on its way INBOUND into the LAN interface.
Agree 100%
Reply traffic for those connections EGRESSES the LAN interface on its way back OUTBOUND to the LAN hosts - relative to the LAN interface.
Test # 2 was the complete opposite and while I agree with your use of terms, the 'EGRESS" traffic you're referring to has nothing to do with the OUT direction.
The only problem here is your failure to properly comprehend these terms in English as they relate to common usage when describing firewall behavior.
This is as backwards as the terms being discussed. EGRESS has nothing to do with OUT under floating rules.
There is nothing at all curious about the floating rule behavior you have described.
I didn't…
-
The drawings and tests I performed are 100% on. The confusion regarding IN,OUT,ANY direction is because of people citing it OUT as OUTbound/egress traffic when it is not.
Yes it is, relative to the interface. That is why you select an INTERFACE and a DIRECTION RELATIVE TO THAT INTERFACE.
-
The drawings and tests I performed are 100% on. The confusion regarding IN,OUT,ANY direction is because of people citing it OUT as OUTbound/egress traffic when it is not.
Yes it is, relative to the interface. That is why you select an INTERFACE and a DIRECTION RELATIVE TO THAT INTERFACE.
OUT is not "egress/outbound" traffic. Think about what you're saying above. If you agree with me that that OUT,IN,ANY are DIRECTION(s) RELATIVE TO an INTERFACE selected, then you cannot possibly say that "OUT" is egress or outbound without contradicting yourself. "OUT" is not outbound traffic
-
I am done. Someone else's turn.
-
I am done. Someone else's turn.
I think you have finally seen the difference and might be too proud to admit it. Don't beat yourself up because I confused "OUT" as being associated with OUTbound/egress for years until I finally sat down and went through those tests I posted. I see you and johnpoz have many postings in these forums and its great to have people actively helping one another. Don't get flustered. And dont be too proud to admit you might have learned something new in this discussion.
-
Sigh.
-
-
Sigh.
Lots of people have holes in their firewall configs for the very reasons being discussed here."OUT" is the direction of packets relative to the interface.
-
Now you seem to be equating "egress" with "traveling from the inside to the outside. From the trusted to the untrusted. From the LAN to the WAN/Internet."
That is not it at all. "ingress" is "INto an interface." WAN or LAN, inside or outside, doesn't matter. It is traffic received by an interface coming into (aka ingressing) the firewall.
"egress" is "OUT of an interface." WAN or LAN, inside or outside, doesn't matter. It is traffic transmitted by an interface going out of (aka eggressing) the firewall.
Look at this again - Really, honestly look at it:
inside/outside
LAN/Trusted –- inside --- FIREWALL --- outside --- Internet/Untrusted
inbound (ingress) / outbound (egress)
inbound --->|
| Interface
outbound <--You insist on using nonstandard terms. I have been trying to get on the same terminology for several posts.
No, I don't need your money. I know I am correct. Use it to buy a dictionary.
-
"egress" is "OUT of an interface." WAN or LAN, inside or outside, doesn't matter. It is traffic transmitted by an interface going out of (aka eggressing) the firewall.
So long as you don't associate the above as having anything to do with the "OUT" direction under floating rules, then I agree. If you're saying that it does and that "OUT" is OUTbound/egress traffic then it's simply not correct. And this confusion keeps perpetuating on these forums because people are posting stuff they dont really understand.
-
That is exactly what it means in floating rules. That is exactly what your tests showed.
Maybe I will take that $500. Let's make that 0.0625 bitcoin before you try to pay in zim dollars or something.
-
That is exactly what it means in floating rules. That is exactly what your tests showed.
Maybe I will take that $500.
So just to be absolutely clear, if you're saying then that "OUT" in floating rules applies to egress/outbound traffic, then I'm all for doing a conference with you. My test #2 showed that OUT is NOT egress outbound traffic - it is the direction of traffic relative to the interface. So if you'r still up fo it citing "Maybe I will take that $500." lets arrange for a time this weekend or next.
-
See there you go again. Can you not read? We are both saying that OUT is RELATIVE TO THE INTERFACE. You keep bandying about this nonsense about "egress outbound traffic."
Please define "egress outbound traffic" so everyone knows wtf you are talking about.
There is a diagram in my signature. Use that as a reference when you describe it.
It is per interface, nobody has ever said any different.
-
See there you go again. Can you not read? We are both saying that OUT is RELATIVE TO THE INTERFACE. You keep bandying about this nonsense about "egress outbound traffic."
Please define "egress outbound traffic" so everyone knows wtf you are talking about.
There is a diagram in my signature. Use that as a reference when you describe it.
It is per interface, nobody has ever said any different.
Gotta go to work, but Ill respond tonight/tomorrow. I feel like Bill Nye debating Ken Ham with comments like "Can you not read?".
