Redirect all outgoing DNS queries to local stub resolver at 127.0.0.1:53What are DNS server, resolver and stub resolver?TPROXY for redirecting UDP on arbitrary portsHow to configure Unbound to use DNSSEC?What are the most restrictive external firewall / DNS listening port settings I can have for my DNS server (internal clients only)iptables - 2 Internetprovider - routingLocal (127.0.1.1) DNS resolver ignores LAN DNS serverHow to route traffic from a specific user through a VPN on LinuxRunning Ubuntu Router using Iptables Services; How to Block UPnP UDP Traffic Forwarding Between Private IP and Public Address (NAT Involved)?What are DNS server, resolver and stub resolver?route traffic of all connected wireless clients to one particular IP and portForward traffic between two hosts, first with a few IP, second with 1 IP and lxd containers

What causes the sudden spool-up sound from an F-16 when enabling afterburner?

Is ipsum/ipsa/ipse a third person pronoun, or can it serve other functions?

Does it makes sense to buy a new cycle to learn riding?

Re-submission of rejected manuscript without informing co-authors

Does the average primeness of natural numbers tend to zero?

Can I legally use front facing blue light in the UK?

New order #4: World

A poker game description that does not feel gimmicky

extract characters between two commas?

Information to fellow intern about hiring?

How to deal with fear of taking dependencies

Can a planet have a different gravitational pull depending on its location in orbit around its sun?

Prime joint compound before latex paint?

Is every set a filtered colimit of finite sets?

Shall I use personal or official e-mail account when registering to external websites for work purpose?

Lied on resume at previous job

Patience, young "Padovan"

I’m planning on buying a laser printer but concerned about the life cycle of toner in the machine

What do you call something that goes against the spirit of the law, but is legal when interpreting the law to the letter?

Is this food a bread or a loaf?

Is there a familial term for apples and pears?

How to move the player while also allowing forces to affect it

What are the advantages and disadvantages of running one shots compared to campaigns?

Is there a way to make member function NOT callable from constructor?



Redirect all outgoing DNS queries to local stub resolver at 127.0.0.1:53


What are DNS server, resolver and stub resolver?TPROXY for redirecting UDP on arbitrary portsHow to configure Unbound to use DNSSEC?What are the most restrictive external firewall / DNS listening port settings I can have for my DNS server (internal clients only)iptables - 2 Internetprovider - routingLocal (127.0.1.1) DNS resolver ignores LAN DNS serverHow to route traffic from a specific user through a VPN on LinuxRunning Ubuntu Router using Iptables Services; How to Block UPnP UDP Traffic Forwarding Between Private IP and Public Address (NAT Involved)?What are DNS server, resolver and stub resolver?route traffic of all connected wireless clients to one particular IP and portForward traffic between two hosts, first with a few IP, second with 1 IP and lxd containers






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








1















I am attempting to redirect all outgoing DNS queries on my Linux box
to my local caching stub resolver (unbound).



iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 1.1.1.1:53
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p udp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 1.1.1.1:53
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE


When I use the above rules, all the outgoing DNS queries are intercepted and redirected to the DNS server at 1.1.1.1



However, if I replace the '1.1.1.1' with '127.0.0.1', all DNS queries fail and are not directed to my local stub resolver.



I did pass the below sysctl parameter



sysctl -w net.ipv4.conf.eth0.route_localnet=1


but my problem remained the same. Any pointers?










share|improve this question







New contributor




donghakim187 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 2





    That is not a stub resolver. unix.stackexchange.com/a/500565/5132

    – JdeBP
    Apr 5 at 19:20

















1















I am attempting to redirect all outgoing DNS queries on my Linux box
to my local caching stub resolver (unbound).



iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 1.1.1.1:53
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p udp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 1.1.1.1:53
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE


When I use the above rules, all the outgoing DNS queries are intercepted and redirected to the DNS server at 1.1.1.1



However, if I replace the '1.1.1.1' with '127.0.0.1', all DNS queries fail and are not directed to my local stub resolver.



I did pass the below sysctl parameter



sysctl -w net.ipv4.conf.eth0.route_localnet=1


but my problem remained the same. Any pointers?










share|improve this question







New contributor




donghakim187 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 2





    That is not a stub resolver. unix.stackexchange.com/a/500565/5132

    – JdeBP
    Apr 5 at 19:20













1












1








1








I am attempting to redirect all outgoing DNS queries on my Linux box
to my local caching stub resolver (unbound).



iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 1.1.1.1:53
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p udp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 1.1.1.1:53
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE


When I use the above rules, all the outgoing DNS queries are intercepted and redirected to the DNS server at 1.1.1.1



However, if I replace the '1.1.1.1' with '127.0.0.1', all DNS queries fail and are not directed to my local stub resolver.



I did pass the below sysctl parameter



sysctl -w net.ipv4.conf.eth0.route_localnet=1


but my problem remained the same. Any pointers?










share|improve this question







New contributor




donghakim187 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












I am attempting to redirect all outgoing DNS queries on my Linux box
to my local caching stub resolver (unbound).



iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 1.1.1.1:53
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p udp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 1.1.1.1:53
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE


When I use the above rules, all the outgoing DNS queries are intercepted and redirected to the DNS server at 1.1.1.1



However, if I replace the '1.1.1.1' with '127.0.0.1', all DNS queries fail and are not directed to my local stub resolver.



I did pass the below sysctl parameter



sysctl -w net.ipv4.conf.eth0.route_localnet=1


but my problem remained the same. Any pointers?







iptables dns unbound






share|improve this question







New contributor




donghakim187 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




donghakim187 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




donghakim187 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked Apr 5 at 18:36









donghakim187donghakim187

82




82




New contributor




donghakim187 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





donghakim187 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






donghakim187 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 2





    That is not a stub resolver. unix.stackexchange.com/a/500565/5132

    – JdeBP
    Apr 5 at 19:20












  • 2





    That is not a stub resolver. unix.stackexchange.com/a/500565/5132

    – JdeBP
    Apr 5 at 19:20







2




2





That is not a stub resolver. unix.stackexchange.com/a/500565/5132

– JdeBP
Apr 5 at 19:20





That is not a stub resolver. unix.stackexchange.com/a/500565/5132

– JdeBP
Apr 5 at 19:20










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1














What becomes clear if debugging with strace, and nc/socat, is that nat/POSTROUTING's MASQUERADE didn't alter the initially chosen address intended to be used for going out. Probably because it's still considered a local address about to be "routed" to lo so doesn't need alteration: the MASQUERADE rule has no effect here.



Anyway, that's what happened. So when replying an UDP query, the server actually connects back to the source which sent data, now use as destination. Naturally the best source is chosen to be used for this destination, the same local address, which is not 127.0.0.1. So here's what's happening if following this with conntrack -E, with an example local IP of 192.0.2.2 and a destination of 198.51.100.1 UDP port 53:



 [NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=40037 dport=53 [UNREPLIED] src=127.0.0.1 dst=192.0.2.2 sport=53 dport=40037
[NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=192.0.2.2 sport=53 dport=40037 [UNREPLIED] src=172.16.0.22 dst=172.16.0.22 sport=40037 dport=53


The reply is not correlated to the initial query (because the source IP isn't 127.0.0.1) so conntrack is handling this as a 2nd flow. Meanwhile the client put its UDP socket in connected mode, meaning an UDP packet received from the wrong source IP (even if correct ports) will be rejected, and the server receives an ICMP error (this can be witnessed with tcpdump -i lo).



The correction is quite simple: don't use MASQUERADE but SNAT. Of course it now has to be specialized for this specific flow (you don't want to SNAT everything to 127.0.0.1), so replace the MASQUERADE line with this instead:



iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p udp --dport 53 -j SNAT --to-source 127.0.0.1


With the corrected flow, the local server now replies using conntrack's expected address which now associate it in the previous flow and de-SNATs it correctly:



 [NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=38871 dport=53 [UNREPLIED] src=127.0.0.1 dst=127.0.0.1 sport=53 dport=38871
[UPDATE] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=38871 dport=53 src=127.0.0.1 dst=127.0.0.1 sport=53 dport=38871


The client receives the expected source 198.51.100.1 and all works as intended.



TCP doesn't suffer the same result, because once the connection is established between 192.0.2.2 and 127.0.0.1, the reply is within the same established connection, it's not a new connection as with UDP, so will have already the expected source and is handled correctly by conntrack. Better anyway add this for consistency:



iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p tcp --dport 53 -j SNAT --to-source 127.0.0.1


Two notes:



  • for your specific case, route_localnet is not needed because all packets are local and stay on lo. The opposite: forwarding elsewhere packets sent to 127.0.0.1 would require it (as well as other tricks).



  • You will probably need additional exception rules if your DNS server is also a DNS client (which would be the case for a recursive DNS server) sending queries outside, or its own queries will be rerouted to itself creating a loop. Usually solved by having the server running with a specific user and using iptables' -m owner match. Something like inserting before each group of rules (in nat/OUTPUT and nat/POSTROUTING) this:



    iptables -t nat -I .... -m owner --uid-owner unbound -j RETURN






share|improve this answer

























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "106"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );






    donghakim187 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f510781%2fredirect-all-outgoing-dns-queries-to-local-stub-resolver-at-127-0-0-153%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    1














    What becomes clear if debugging with strace, and nc/socat, is that nat/POSTROUTING's MASQUERADE didn't alter the initially chosen address intended to be used for going out. Probably because it's still considered a local address about to be "routed" to lo so doesn't need alteration: the MASQUERADE rule has no effect here.



    Anyway, that's what happened. So when replying an UDP query, the server actually connects back to the source which sent data, now use as destination. Naturally the best source is chosen to be used for this destination, the same local address, which is not 127.0.0.1. So here's what's happening if following this with conntrack -E, with an example local IP of 192.0.2.2 and a destination of 198.51.100.1 UDP port 53:



     [NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=40037 dport=53 [UNREPLIED] src=127.0.0.1 dst=192.0.2.2 sport=53 dport=40037
    [NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=192.0.2.2 sport=53 dport=40037 [UNREPLIED] src=172.16.0.22 dst=172.16.0.22 sport=40037 dport=53


    The reply is not correlated to the initial query (because the source IP isn't 127.0.0.1) so conntrack is handling this as a 2nd flow. Meanwhile the client put its UDP socket in connected mode, meaning an UDP packet received from the wrong source IP (even if correct ports) will be rejected, and the server receives an ICMP error (this can be witnessed with tcpdump -i lo).



    The correction is quite simple: don't use MASQUERADE but SNAT. Of course it now has to be specialized for this specific flow (you don't want to SNAT everything to 127.0.0.1), so replace the MASQUERADE line with this instead:



    iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p udp --dport 53 -j SNAT --to-source 127.0.0.1


    With the corrected flow, the local server now replies using conntrack's expected address which now associate it in the previous flow and de-SNATs it correctly:



     [NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=38871 dport=53 [UNREPLIED] src=127.0.0.1 dst=127.0.0.1 sport=53 dport=38871
    [UPDATE] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=38871 dport=53 src=127.0.0.1 dst=127.0.0.1 sport=53 dport=38871


    The client receives the expected source 198.51.100.1 and all works as intended.



    TCP doesn't suffer the same result, because once the connection is established between 192.0.2.2 and 127.0.0.1, the reply is within the same established connection, it's not a new connection as with UDP, so will have already the expected source and is handled correctly by conntrack. Better anyway add this for consistency:



    iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p tcp --dport 53 -j SNAT --to-source 127.0.0.1


    Two notes:



    • for your specific case, route_localnet is not needed because all packets are local and stay on lo. The opposite: forwarding elsewhere packets sent to 127.0.0.1 would require it (as well as other tricks).



    • You will probably need additional exception rules if your DNS server is also a DNS client (which would be the case for a recursive DNS server) sending queries outside, or its own queries will be rerouted to itself creating a loop. Usually solved by having the server running with a specific user and using iptables' -m owner match. Something like inserting before each group of rules (in nat/OUTPUT and nat/POSTROUTING) this:



      iptables -t nat -I .... -m owner --uid-owner unbound -j RETURN






    share|improve this answer





























      1














      What becomes clear if debugging with strace, and nc/socat, is that nat/POSTROUTING's MASQUERADE didn't alter the initially chosen address intended to be used for going out. Probably because it's still considered a local address about to be "routed" to lo so doesn't need alteration: the MASQUERADE rule has no effect here.



      Anyway, that's what happened. So when replying an UDP query, the server actually connects back to the source which sent data, now use as destination. Naturally the best source is chosen to be used for this destination, the same local address, which is not 127.0.0.1. So here's what's happening if following this with conntrack -E, with an example local IP of 192.0.2.2 and a destination of 198.51.100.1 UDP port 53:



       [NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=40037 dport=53 [UNREPLIED] src=127.0.0.1 dst=192.0.2.2 sport=53 dport=40037
      [NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=192.0.2.2 sport=53 dport=40037 [UNREPLIED] src=172.16.0.22 dst=172.16.0.22 sport=40037 dport=53


      The reply is not correlated to the initial query (because the source IP isn't 127.0.0.1) so conntrack is handling this as a 2nd flow. Meanwhile the client put its UDP socket in connected mode, meaning an UDP packet received from the wrong source IP (even if correct ports) will be rejected, and the server receives an ICMP error (this can be witnessed with tcpdump -i lo).



      The correction is quite simple: don't use MASQUERADE but SNAT. Of course it now has to be specialized for this specific flow (you don't want to SNAT everything to 127.0.0.1), so replace the MASQUERADE line with this instead:



      iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p udp --dport 53 -j SNAT --to-source 127.0.0.1


      With the corrected flow, the local server now replies using conntrack's expected address which now associate it in the previous flow and de-SNATs it correctly:



       [NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=38871 dport=53 [UNREPLIED] src=127.0.0.1 dst=127.0.0.1 sport=53 dport=38871
      [UPDATE] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=38871 dport=53 src=127.0.0.1 dst=127.0.0.1 sport=53 dport=38871


      The client receives the expected source 198.51.100.1 and all works as intended.



      TCP doesn't suffer the same result, because once the connection is established between 192.0.2.2 and 127.0.0.1, the reply is within the same established connection, it's not a new connection as with UDP, so will have already the expected source and is handled correctly by conntrack. Better anyway add this for consistency:



      iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p tcp --dport 53 -j SNAT --to-source 127.0.0.1


      Two notes:



      • for your specific case, route_localnet is not needed because all packets are local and stay on lo. The opposite: forwarding elsewhere packets sent to 127.0.0.1 would require it (as well as other tricks).



      • You will probably need additional exception rules if your DNS server is also a DNS client (which would be the case for a recursive DNS server) sending queries outside, or its own queries will be rerouted to itself creating a loop. Usually solved by having the server running with a specific user and using iptables' -m owner match. Something like inserting before each group of rules (in nat/OUTPUT and nat/POSTROUTING) this:



        iptables -t nat -I .... -m owner --uid-owner unbound -j RETURN






      share|improve this answer



























        1












        1








        1







        What becomes clear if debugging with strace, and nc/socat, is that nat/POSTROUTING's MASQUERADE didn't alter the initially chosen address intended to be used for going out. Probably because it's still considered a local address about to be "routed" to lo so doesn't need alteration: the MASQUERADE rule has no effect here.



        Anyway, that's what happened. So when replying an UDP query, the server actually connects back to the source which sent data, now use as destination. Naturally the best source is chosen to be used for this destination, the same local address, which is not 127.0.0.1. So here's what's happening if following this with conntrack -E, with an example local IP of 192.0.2.2 and a destination of 198.51.100.1 UDP port 53:



         [NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=40037 dport=53 [UNREPLIED] src=127.0.0.1 dst=192.0.2.2 sport=53 dport=40037
        [NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=192.0.2.2 sport=53 dport=40037 [UNREPLIED] src=172.16.0.22 dst=172.16.0.22 sport=40037 dport=53


        The reply is not correlated to the initial query (because the source IP isn't 127.0.0.1) so conntrack is handling this as a 2nd flow. Meanwhile the client put its UDP socket in connected mode, meaning an UDP packet received from the wrong source IP (even if correct ports) will be rejected, and the server receives an ICMP error (this can be witnessed with tcpdump -i lo).



        The correction is quite simple: don't use MASQUERADE but SNAT. Of course it now has to be specialized for this specific flow (you don't want to SNAT everything to 127.0.0.1), so replace the MASQUERADE line with this instead:



        iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p udp --dport 53 -j SNAT --to-source 127.0.0.1


        With the corrected flow, the local server now replies using conntrack's expected address which now associate it in the previous flow and de-SNATs it correctly:



         [NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=38871 dport=53 [UNREPLIED] src=127.0.0.1 dst=127.0.0.1 sport=53 dport=38871
        [UPDATE] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=38871 dport=53 src=127.0.0.1 dst=127.0.0.1 sport=53 dport=38871


        The client receives the expected source 198.51.100.1 and all works as intended.



        TCP doesn't suffer the same result, because once the connection is established between 192.0.2.2 and 127.0.0.1, the reply is within the same established connection, it's not a new connection as with UDP, so will have already the expected source and is handled correctly by conntrack. Better anyway add this for consistency:



        iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p tcp --dport 53 -j SNAT --to-source 127.0.0.1


        Two notes:



        • for your specific case, route_localnet is not needed because all packets are local and stay on lo. The opposite: forwarding elsewhere packets sent to 127.0.0.1 would require it (as well as other tricks).



        • You will probably need additional exception rules if your DNS server is also a DNS client (which would be the case for a recursive DNS server) sending queries outside, or its own queries will be rerouted to itself creating a loop. Usually solved by having the server running with a specific user and using iptables' -m owner match. Something like inserting before each group of rules (in nat/OUTPUT and nat/POSTROUTING) this:



          iptables -t nat -I .... -m owner --uid-owner unbound -j RETURN






        share|improve this answer















        What becomes clear if debugging with strace, and nc/socat, is that nat/POSTROUTING's MASQUERADE didn't alter the initially chosen address intended to be used for going out. Probably because it's still considered a local address about to be "routed" to lo so doesn't need alteration: the MASQUERADE rule has no effect here.



        Anyway, that's what happened. So when replying an UDP query, the server actually connects back to the source which sent data, now use as destination. Naturally the best source is chosen to be used for this destination, the same local address, which is not 127.0.0.1. So here's what's happening if following this with conntrack -E, with an example local IP of 192.0.2.2 and a destination of 198.51.100.1 UDP port 53:



         [NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=40037 dport=53 [UNREPLIED] src=127.0.0.1 dst=192.0.2.2 sport=53 dport=40037
        [NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=192.0.2.2 sport=53 dport=40037 [UNREPLIED] src=172.16.0.22 dst=172.16.0.22 sport=40037 dport=53


        The reply is not correlated to the initial query (because the source IP isn't 127.0.0.1) so conntrack is handling this as a 2nd flow. Meanwhile the client put its UDP socket in connected mode, meaning an UDP packet received from the wrong source IP (even if correct ports) will be rejected, and the server receives an ICMP error (this can be witnessed with tcpdump -i lo).



        The correction is quite simple: don't use MASQUERADE but SNAT. Of course it now has to be specialized for this specific flow (you don't want to SNAT everything to 127.0.0.1), so replace the MASQUERADE line with this instead:



        iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p udp --dport 53 -j SNAT --to-source 127.0.0.1


        With the corrected flow, the local server now replies using conntrack's expected address which now associate it in the previous flow and de-SNATs it correctly:



         [NEW] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=38871 dport=53 [UNREPLIED] src=127.0.0.1 dst=127.0.0.1 sport=53 dport=38871
        [UPDATE] udp 17 30 src=192.0.2.2 dst=198.51.100.1 sport=38871 dport=53 src=127.0.0.1 dst=127.0.0.1 sport=53 dport=38871


        The client receives the expected source 198.51.100.1 and all works as intended.



        TCP doesn't suffer the same result, because once the connection is established between 192.0.2.2 and 127.0.0.1, the reply is within the same established connection, it's not a new connection as with UDP, so will have already the expected source and is handled correctly by conntrack. Better anyway add this for consistency:



        iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p tcp --dport 53 -j SNAT --to-source 127.0.0.1


        Two notes:



        • for your specific case, route_localnet is not needed because all packets are local and stay on lo. The opposite: forwarding elsewhere packets sent to 127.0.0.1 would require it (as well as other tricks).



        • You will probably need additional exception rules if your DNS server is also a DNS client (which would be the case for a recursive DNS server) sending queries outside, or its own queries will be rerouted to itself creating a loop. Usually solved by having the server running with a specific user and using iptables' -m owner match. Something like inserting before each group of rules (in nat/OUTPUT and nat/POSTROUTING) this:



          iptables -t nat -I .... -m owner --uid-owner unbound -j RETURN







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Apr 5 at 21:35

























        answered Apr 5 at 21:13









        A.BA.B

        5,94711030




        5,94711030




















            donghakim187 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            donghakim187 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            donghakim187 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











            donghakim187 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














            Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f510781%2fredirect-all-outgoing-dns-queries-to-local-stub-resolver-at-127-0-0-153%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            getting Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender working in the command lineHow to connect to CheckPoint VPN on Ubuntu 18.04LTS?Will the Linux ( red-hat ) Open VPNC Client connect to checkpoint or nortel VPN gateways?VPN client for linux machine + support checkpoint gatewayVPN SSL Network Extender in FirefoxLinux Checkpoint SNX tool configuration issuesCheck Point - Connect under Linux - snx + OTPSNX VPN Ububuntu 18.XXUsing Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender CLI with certificateVPN with network manager (nm-applet) is not workingWill the Linux ( red-hat ) Open VPNC Client connect to checkpoint or nortel VPN gateways?VPN client for linux machine + support checkpoint gatewayImport VPN config files to NetworkManager from command lineTrouble connecting to VPN using network-manager, while command line worksStart a VPN connection with PPTP protocol on command linestarting a docker service daemon breaks the vpn networkCan't connect to vpn with Network-managerVPN SSL Network Extender in FirefoxUsing Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender CLI with certificate

            NetworkManager fails with “Could not find source connection”Trouble connecting to VPN using network-manager, while command line worksHow can I be notified about state changes to a VPN adapterBacktrack 5 R3 - Refuses to connect to VPNFeed all traffic through OpenVPN for a specific network namespace onlyRun daemon on startup in Debian once openvpn connection establishedpfsense tcp connection between openvpn and lan is brokenInternet connection problem with web browsers onlyWhy does NetworkManager explicitly support tun/tap devices?Browser issues with VPNTwo IP addresses assigned to the same network card - OpenVPN issues?Cannot connect to WiFi with nmcli, although secrets are provided

            대한민국 목차 국명 지리 역사 정치 국방 경제 사회 문화 국제 순위 관련 항목 각주 외부 링크 둘러보기 메뉴북위 37° 34′ 08″ 동경 126° 58′ 36″ / 북위 37.568889° 동경 126.976667°  / 37.568889; 126.976667ehThe Korean Repository문단을 편집문단을 편집추가해Clarkson PLC 사Report for Selected Countries and Subjects-Korea“Human Development Index and its components: P.198”“http://www.law.go.kr/%EB%B2%95%EB%A0%B9/%EB%8C%80%ED%95%9C%EB%AF%BC%EA%B5%AD%EA%B5%AD%EA%B8%B0%EB%B2%95”"한국은 국제법상 한반도 유일 합법정부 아니다" - 오마이뉴스 모바일Report for Selected Countries and Subjects: South Korea격동의 역사와 함께한 조선일보 90년 : 조선일보 인수해 혁신시킨 신석우, 임시정부 때는 '대한민국' 국호(國號) 정해《우리가 몰랐던 우리 역사: 나라 이름의 비밀을 찾아가는 역사 여행》“남북 공식호칭 ‘남한’‘북한’으로 쓴다”“Corea 대 Korea, 누가 이긴 거야?”국내기후자료 - 한국[김대중 前 대통령 서거] 과감한 구조개혁 'DJ노믹스'로 최단기간 환란극복 :: 네이버 뉴스“이라크 "韓-쿠르드 유전개발 MOU 승인 안해"(종합)”“해외 우리국민 추방사례 43%가 일본”차기전차 K2'흑표'의 세계 최고 전력 분석, 쿠키뉴스 엄기영, 2007-03-02두산인프라, 헬기잡는 장갑차 'K21'...내년부터 공급, 고뉴스 이대준, 2008-10-30과거 내용 찾기mk 뉴스 - 구매력 기준으로 보면 한국 1인당 소득 3만弗과거 내용 찾기"The N-11: More Than an Acronym"Archived조선일보 최우석, 2008-11-01Global 500 2008: Countries - South Korea“몇년째 '시한폭탄'... 가계부채, 올해는 터질까”가구당 부채 5000만원 처음 넘어서“‘빚’으로 내몰리는 사회.. 위기의 가계대출”“[경제365] 공공부문 부채 급증…800조 육박”“"소득 양극화 다소 완화...불평등은 여전"”“공정사회·공생발전 한참 멀었네”iSuppli,08年2QのDRAMシェア・ランキングを発表(08/8/11)South Korea dominates shipbuilding industry | Stock Market News & Stocks to Watch from StraightStocks한국 자동차 생산, 3년 연속 세계 5위자동차수출 '현대-삼성 웃고 기아-대우-쌍용은 울고' 과거 내용 찾기동반성장위 창립 1주년 맞아Archived"중기적합 3개업종 합의 무시한 채 선정"李대통령, 사업 무분별 확장 소상공인 생계 위협 질타삼성-LG, 서민업종인 빵·분식사업 잇따라 철수상생은 뒷전…SSM ‘몸집 불리기’ 혈안Archived“경부고속도에 '아시안하이웨이' 표지판”'철의 실크로드' 앞서 '말(言)의 실크로드'부터, 프레시안 정창현, 2008-10-01“'서울 지하철은 안전한가?'”“서울시 “올해 안에 모든 지하철역 스크린도어 설치””“부산지하철 1,2호선 승강장 안전펜스 설치 완료”“전교조, 정부 노조 통계서 처음 빠져”“[Weekly BIZ] 도요타 '제로 이사회'가 리콜 사태 불러들였다”“S Korea slams high tuition costs”““정치가 여론 양극화 부채질… 합리주의 절실””“〈"`촛불집회'는 민주주의의 질적 변화 상징"〉”““촛불집회가 민주주의 왜곡 초래””“국민 65%, "한국 노사관계 대립적"”“한국 국가경쟁력 27위‥노사관계 '꼴찌'”“제대로 형성되지 않은 대한민국 이념지형”“[신년기획-갈등의 시대] 갈등지수 OECD 4위…사회적 손실 GDP 27% 무려 300조”“2012 총선-대선의 키워드는 '국민과 소통'”“한국 삶의 질 27위, 2000년과 2008년 연속 하위권 머물러”“[해피 코리아] 행복점수 68점…해외 평가선 '낙제점'”“한국 어린이·청소년 행복지수 3년 연속 OECD ‘꼴찌’”“한국 이혼율 OECD중 8위”“[통계청] 한국 이혼율 OECD 4위”“오피니언 [이렇게 생각한다] `부부의 날` 에 돌아본 이혼율 1위 한국”“Suicide Rates by Country, Global Health Observatory Data Repository.”“1. 또 다른 차별”“오피니언 [편집자에게] '왕따'와 '패거리 정치' 심리는 닮은꼴”“[미래한국리포트] 무한경쟁에 빠진 대한민국”“대학생 98% "외모가 경쟁력이라는 말 동의"”“특급호텔 웨딩·200만원대 유모차… "남보다 더…" 호화病, 고질병 됐다”“[스트레스 공화국] ① 경쟁사회, 스트레스 쌓인다”““매일 30여명 자살 한국, 의사보다 무속인에…””“"자살 부르는 '우울증', 환자 중 85% 치료 안 받아"”“정신병원을 가다”“대한민국도 ‘묻지마 범죄’,안전지대 아니다”“유엔 "학생 '성적 지향'에 따른 차별 금지하라"”“유엔아동권리위원회 보고서 및 번역본 원문”“고졸 성공스토리 담은 '제빵왕 김탁구' 드라마 나온다”“‘빛 좋은 개살구’ 고졸 취업…실습 대신 착취”원본 문서“정신건강, 사회적 편견부터 고쳐드립니다”‘소통’과 ‘행복’에 목 마른 사회가 잠들어 있던 ‘심리학’ 깨웠다“[포토] 사유리-곽금주 교수의 유쾌한 심리상담”“"올해 한국인 평균 영화관람횟수 세계 1위"(종합)”“[게임연중기획] 게임은 문화다-여가활동 1순위 게임”“영화속 ‘영어 지상주의’ …“왠지 씁쓸한데””“2월 `신문 부수 인증기관` 지정..방송법 후속작업”“무료신문 성장동력 ‘차별성’과 ‘갈등해소’”대한민국 국회 법률지식정보시스템"Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project: South Korea"“amp;vwcd=MT_ZTITLE&path=인구·가구%20>%20인구총조사%20>%20인구부문%20>%20 총조사인구(2005)%20>%20전수부문&oper_YN=Y&item=&keyword=종교별%20인구& amp;lang_mode=kor&list_id= 2005년 통계청 인구 총조사”원본 문서“한국인이 좋아하는 취미와 운동 (2004-2009)”“한국인이 좋아하는 취미와 운동 (2004-2014)”Archived“한국, `부분적 언론자유국' 강등〈프리덤하우스〉”“국경없는기자회 "한국, 인터넷감시 대상국"”“한국, 조선산업 1위 유지(S. Korea Stays Top Shipbuilding Nation) RZD-Partner Portal”원본 문서“한국, 4년 만에 ‘선박건조 1위’”“옛 마산시,인터넷속도 세계 1위”“"한국 초고속 인터넷망 세계1위"”“인터넷·휴대폰 요금, 외국보다 훨씬 비싸”“한국 관세행정 6년 연속 세계 '1위'”“한국 교통사고 사망자 수 OECD 회원국 중 2위”“결핵 후진국' 한국, 환자가 급증한 이유는”“수술은 신중해야… 자칫하면 생명 위협”대한민국분류대한민국의 지도대한민국 정부대표 다국어포털대한민국 전자정부대한민국 국회한국방송공사about korea and information korea브리태니커 백과사전(한국편)론리플래닛의 정보(한국편)CIA의 세계 정보(한국편)마리암 부디아 (Mariam Budia),『한국: 하늘이 내린 한 폭의 그림』, 서울: 트랜스라틴 19호 (2012년 3월)대한민국ehehehehehehehehehehehehehehWorldCat132441370n791268020000 0001 2308 81034078029-6026373548cb11863345f(데이터)00573706ge128495