Need help routing Wireguard container traffic through Gluetun container

Comments

• CumBroth@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  [deleted]

  source

  • scapeg0at@midwest.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Thank you for the reply! I’ve been busy the last couple of days so I just got around to looking back at this.

    I tested out your advice and setup a wireguard container with the MASQUERADE NAT rule and it worked! However, when I tried it out again with the gluetun container. I’m still running into issues, but there is progress!

    With my setup before when I connect my client to the wireguard network I would get a “no network” error. Now when I try access the internet the connection times out. Still not ideal, but at least it’s a different error than before!

    With the MASQUERADE NAT rule in place, running tcpdump on the docker network shows that at least the two containers are talking to each other:

    17:04:29.927415 IP 172.22.0.2 > 172.22.0.100: ICMP echo request, id 4, seq 9823, length 64
    17:04:29.927466 IP 172.22.0.100 > 172.22.0.2: ICMP echo reply, id 4, seq 9823, length 64
    

    but I still cannot get any internet access through the wireguard tunnel.

    When exploring around the gluetun config I confirmed that the MASQUERADE rule was actually set:

    Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 2933 packets, 316K bytes)
     pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination
    
    Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 839 packets, 86643 bytes)
     pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination
    
    Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 12235 packets, 741K bytes)
     pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination
    
    Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 11408 packets, 687K bytes)
     pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination
     2921  284K MASQUERADE  0    --  *      eth+    0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0
    

    I think that the issue may be the default firewall rules of the gluetun block all traffic besides the VPN traffic via the main iptable:

    Chain INPUT (policy DROP 0 packets, 0 bytes)
     pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination
     2236  164K ACCEPT     0    --  lo     *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0
    11914   12M ACCEPT     0    --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED
       87 15792 ACCEPT     0    --  eth0   *       0.0.0.0/0            172.22.0.0/24
    
    Chain FORWARD (policy DROP 381 packets, 22780 bytes)
     pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination
    
    Chain OUTPUT (policy DROP 76 packets, 5396 bytes)
     pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination
     2236  164K ACCEPT     0    --  *      lo      0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0
     8152  872K ACCEPT     0    --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED
        0     0 ACCEPT     0    --  *      eth0    172.22.0.100         172.22.0.0/24
        1   176 ACCEPT     17   --  *      eth0    0.0.0.0/0            213.152.187.229      udp dpt:1637
      212 12843 ACCEPT     0    --  *      tun0    0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0
    

    I tried adding simple iptables rules such as iptables -A FORWARD -i tun+ -j ACCEPT (and the same with eth+ as the interface) but with no luck.

    If you think you can help I’ll be down to try out other solutions, or if you need more information I can post it when I have time. If you don’t think this will be an easy fix I can revert back to the wireguard-wireguard container setup since that worked. I tried to get this setup working so I could leverage the gluetun kill-switch/restart.

    source

    • CumBroth@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I think you already have a kill-switch (of sorts) in place with the two Wireguard container setup, since you lose client connectivity (except to the local network, since there’s a separate route for that) if any of the following happens:

      • “Client” container is spun down
      • The Wireguard interface inside the “client” container is spun down (you can try this out by execing “wg-quick down wg0” inside the container)
      • or even if the interface is up but the VPN connection is down (try changing the endpoint IP to a random one instead of the correct one provided by your VPN service provider)

      I can’t be 100% sure, because I’m not a networking expert, but this seems like enough of a “kill-switch” to me. I’m not sure what you mean by leveraging the restart. One of the things that I found annoying about the Gluetun approach is that I would have to restart every container that depends on its network stack if Gluetun itself gets restarted/updated.

      But anyway, I went ahead and messed around on a VPS with the Wireguard+Gluetun approach and I got it working. I am using the latest version of The Linuxserver.io Wireguard container and Gluetun at the time of writing. There are two things missing in the Gluetun firewall configuration you posted:

      • A MASQUERADE rule on the tunnel, meaning the tun0 interface.
      • Gluetun is configured to drop all FORWARD packets (filter table) by default. You’ll have to change that chain rule to ACCEPT. Again, I’m not a network expert, so I’m not sure whether or not this compromises the kill-switch in any way, at least in any relevant way to the desired setup.

      First, here’s the docker compose setup I used:

      networks:
        wghomenet:
          name: wghomenet
          ipam:
            config:
              - subnet: 172.22.0.0/24
                gateway: 172.22.0.1
      
      services:
        gluetun:
          image: qmcgaw/gluetun
          container_name: gluetun
          cap_add:
            - NET_ADMIN
          devices:
            - /dev/net/tun:/dev/net/tun
          ports:
            - 8888:8888/tcp # HTTP proxy
            - 8388:8388/tcp # Shadowsocks
            - 8388:8388/udp # Shadowsocks
          volumes:
            - ./config:/gluetun
          environment:
            - VPN_SERVICE_PROVIDER=<your stuff here>
            - VPN_TYPE=wireguard
            # - WIREGUARD_PRIVATE_KEY=<your stuff here>
            # - WIREGUARD_PRESHARED_KEY=<your stuff here>
            # - WIREGUARD_ADDRESSES=<your stuff here>
            # - SERVER_COUNTRIES=<your stuff here>
            # Timezone for accurate log times
            - TZ= <your stuff here>
            # Server list updater
            # See https://github.com/qdm12/gluetun-wiki/blob/main/setup/servers.md#update-the-vpn-servers-list
            - UPDATER_PERIOD=24h
          sysctls:
            - net.ipv4.conf.all.src_valid_mark=1
          networks:
            wghomenet:
              ipv4_address: 172.22.0.101
      
        wireguard-server:
          image: lscr.io/linuxserver/wireguard
          container_name: wireguard-server
          cap_add:
            - NET_ADMIN
          environment:
            - PUID=1000
            - PGID=1001
            - TZ=<your stuff here>
            - INTERNAL_SUBNET=10.13.13.0
            - PEERS=chromebook
          volumes:
            - ./config/wg-server:/config
            - /lib/modules:/lib/modules #optional
          restart: always
          ports:
            - 51820:51820/udp
          networks:
            wghomenet:
              ipv4_address: 172.22.0.5
          sysctls:
            - net.ipv4.conf.all.src_valid_mark=1
      

      You already have your “server” container properly configured. Now for Gluetun: I exec into the container docker exec -it gluetun sh. Then I set the MASQUERADE rule on the tunnel: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o tun+ -j MASQUERADE. And finally, I change the FORWARD chain policy in the filter table to ACCEPT iptables -t filter -P FORWARD ACCEPT.

      Note on the last command: In my case I did iptables-legacy because all the rules were defined there already (iptables gives you a warning if that’s the case), but your container’s version may vary. I saw different behavior/setup on the testing container I spun up on the VPS compared to the one I have running on my homelab.

      Good luck, and let me know if you run into any issues!

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• Decronym@lemmy.decronym.xyz ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:

  Fewer Letters	More Letters
  DNS	Domain Name Service/System
  HTTP	Hypertext Transfer Protocol, the Web
  IP	Internet Protocol
  NAT	Network Address Translation
  VPN	Virtual Private Network
  VPS	Virtual Private Server (opposed to shared hosting)

  ---

  [Thread #885 for this sub, first seen 24th Jul 2024, 20:25] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]

  source
• NegativeLookBehind@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  This might be a dumb question, but are the interface names correct in your configurations?

  source