Let's say the firewall outside interface is 192.168.1.254/24. The
general Internet access (vDSL modem) is 192.168.1.1/24, connected to the
firewall by Ethernet. It NATs all outgoing IP traffic to the Internet by
replacing the source IP address by its own public IP address
(masquerading) to make it routable on the World Wild Internet.
A new secondary Internet access is added. It is implemented by a Meraki,
operated by POST. I have NO ACCESS to its configuration, not even the
pppoe credentials, so no ways to circumvent it.
The Meraki LAN interface is, let's say, 192.168.1.100/24. It has a fixed
public IPv4 WAN address. All incoming traffic (limited to IPv4, with a
limited MTU and only ICMP, UDP or TCP because of POST limitations) is
forwarded to the firewall outside IP address, 192.168.1.254/24, by POST
configuration.
This way, the general traffic works as usually and previously: through
the general Internet access, the default gateway, the vDSL modem. There
is so in the firewall a "default route" with 192.168.1.1 as default gateway.
Some selected traffic can be routed to the POST Internet access,
depending on its destination IP address or because of flagged traffic
(iproute with marks and multiples routing tables to select the
appropriate gateway).
As example, all the traffic to youporn (216.18.168.116) could be routed
through the POST Internet access by adding a static route on the firewall:
# route add -host 216.18.168.116 gw 192.168.1.100
This traffic takes so the POST Internet access to reach its destination,
and is NATed by the Meraki (source IP address NAT), so the return
traffic reaches back the POST Internet access, and is reverse-NATed back
to the firewall...
The problem is to try to _use the POST Internet access for INCOMING
traffic_.
If a connection attempt comes from the Internet (let's say 1.1.1.1)
through this POST Internet access, the IP packet is forwarded to the
firewall ("exposed host") by the Meraki, because of POST configuration,
and it is what is expected. But as this packet has still 1.1.1.1 as
source IP address, the answer to this request is routed back to the
Internet by the general Internet access, so will be NATed (masqueraded)
from a different public IP address.
The host 1.1.1.1 will then receive answer to it's connection attempt
from a completely different IP address, and so will not link it to the
request, so it won't work.
The solution would be to masquerade the source IP address of the
incoming traffic crossing the Meraki, so that the firewall would see it
as coming from the Meraki internal IP address, in this example
192.168.1.100/24.
The firewall will then answer the request apparently coming from
192.168.1.100, and the Meraki should reverse-NAT it back to it's actual
destination, in this example 1.1.1.1. The connection will establish.
For sure, I know that in this case, the firewall will not be able to
filter incoming traffic based on it's source IP address, but it's just
about making it possible, not (yet) clever or appropriate.
So I ask POST technical service to set-up this internal NAT, and they
answer that it's NOT SUPPORTED by the Meraki. I can't believe Cisco has
became so bad that they are not able to do this simple masquerading,
especially as I suspect they use Linux as underlying technology...
So I looked at Meraki documentation, but I didn't found anything else
than a very basic web-based configuration interface manual. That's why I
ask if:
* Somebody knows Meraki
* Is Meraki based on Linux kernel ?
* Is there a way to access the Meraki CLI ?
* Is there a way to configure this very basic traffic masquerading rule ?
So that I could find a solution (at least limited so far) and learn POST
help-desk again something they didn't know...
Note: changing the default route IS NOT an acceptable solution, as
changing the default Internet access would have lots of other
consequences, due to historical reasons.
The incoming traffic through the POST Internet access comes potentially
from /any/ public IPv4 routable address. It should be answered by the
two Internet accesses.
Actually, the real situation is more complex: the firewall is exposed to
incoming traffic from already three Internet accesses, provided by
various ISPs and technologies. And it works, as I have control over
those Internet accesses.
The problem occurs just because of this fourth "Internet access" by
POST, which is out of my control and apparently unable to provide this
basic feature: masquerading the incoming traffic.
By the way, I'm not even sure this "Internet access service" can be
qualified of "Internet access" as anybody knows (or should know) that
what is common on the Internet is... the IP protocol. However, this
"Internet access" service is strictly limited to IPv4, and to only the
TCP, UDP and ICMP protocols. This is so a very limited Internet access,
somehow as you might have received from some hotels in old times: a
"Internet access" that was limited to web browsing, and blocked any
"unknown" service, such as SSH, telnet, IMAP, and so on. This also
happened in the very old days (about 15 years ago) when some ISPs
blocked SIP traffic or added intentionally jitter to the VoIP audio
streams...
Those limitations have been ruled as illegal already, but here in
Luxembourg, there is a delinquent company called POST that still apply
such restrictions, apparently...
Practically, those restrictions prevents customers to access to:
* IPSec VPNs, as some implementations requires ESP and AH protocols
(not TCP or UDP)
* GRE
* IPinIP
* PIM, IGMP (for multicast)
* various routing protocols
* IPv6
* RDP
* and so on...
which are _part of the Internet protocols_, even if unknown by POST
commercial management, apparently.
I notice that some other ISPs (LOL, MixVoIP, ...) do provide genuine
Internet accesses, with full 1500 MTU and all the services above IP, as
expected...
Any help would be appreciated.
Le 08/04/2019 à 12:17, Gökdağ Göktepe a écrit :
I am trying to figure out your problem but French is a
bit complicated
for me. As an instance I think it has sth to do with administrative
distance . But I don’t know if you have static routes defined for your
secondary internet access and how
Gökdağ
On 8 Apr 2019, at 11:56, Brent Frère <Brent.Frere(a)abilit.eu
<mailto:Brent.Frere@abilit.eu>> wrote:
> Not yet.
>
> Le 08/04/2019 à 11:17, Gökdağ Göktepe a écrit :
>> Hi Brent did you find any solution?
>>
>> Gökdağ