ebtables/iptables/bridge-utils: PREROUTING/FORWARD issue on single-NIC bridgeHow to configure traffic from a specific IP hardcoded to an IP to forward to another IP:PORT using iptables?iptables port forward forwardingiptables nat: Handle OUTPUT chain via PREROUTING chain / forward from OUTPUT to PREROUTINGForward http traffic to another ip address with iptablesIptables stringHow to configure port-forwarding to enable internal service accessed by another machine?Config differents external proxy to every VM with iptablesiptables port forwarding to server with different portBlock linux bridge traffic (only one way) using iptables or ebtablesport forwarding to backend server

Can any NP-Complete Problem be solved using at most polynomial space (but while using exponential time?)

How do I professionally let my manager know I'll quit over smoking in the office?

Really Old Stock Valuation

Do I have to explain the mechanical superiority of the player-character within the fiction of the game?

What happens to Cessna electric flaps that are moving when power is lost?

Drawing people along with x and y axis

Can you find x?

How can I politely work my way around not liking coffee or beer when it comes to professional networking?

Trainee keeps missing deadlines for independent learning

Can someone suggest a path to study Mordell-Weil theorem for someone studying on their own?

Old sci-fi story: radiation mutated the animals, a boy loses a limb, but it's okay because "humans used to do great with only two arms"

How much will studying magic in an academy cost?

What was the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft escape tunnel?

What is "industrial ethernet"?

How many people are necessary to maintain modern civilisation?

Why does Linux list NVMe drives as /dev/nvme0 instead of /dev/sda?

JSON selector class in Python

How do I set an alias to a terminal line?

How large would a mega structure have to be to host 1 billion people indefinitely?

If I wouldn't want to read the story, is writing it still a good idea?

What's currently blocking the construction of the wall between Mexico and the US?

What does "play with your toy’s toys" mean?

What is the legal status of travelling with methadone in your carry-on?

Minimum distance between holes in inner tube



ebtables/iptables/bridge-utils: PREROUTING/FORWARD issue on single-NIC bridge


How to configure traffic from a specific IP hardcoded to an IP to forward to another IP:PORT using iptables?iptables port forward forwardingiptables nat: Handle OUTPUT chain via PREROUTING chain / forward from OUTPUT to PREROUTINGForward http traffic to another ip address with iptablesIptables stringHow to configure port-forwarding to enable internal service accessed by another machine?Config differents external proxy to every VM with iptablesiptables port forwarding to server with different portBlock linux bridge traffic (only one way) using iptables or ebtablesport forwarding to backend server






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;








1















We have a number of iptables rules for forwarding connections, which are solid and work well.



For example, port 80 forwards to port 8080 on the same machine (the webserver). When a given webserver is restarting, we forward requests to another IP on port 8080 which displays a Maintenance Page. In most cases, this other IP is on a separate server.



This all worked perfectly until we installed bridge-utils and changed to using a bridge br0 instead of eth0 as the interface.



The reason we have converted to using a bridge interface is to gain access to the MAC SNAT/DNAT capabilities of ebtables. We have no other reason to add a bridge interface on the servers, as they don't actually bridge connections over multiple interfaces.



I know this is a strange reason to add a bridge on the servers, but we are using the MAC SNAT/DNAT capabilities in a new project and ebtables seemed to be the safest, fastest and easiest way to go since we are already so familiar with iptables.



The problem is, since converting to a br0 interface, iptables PREROUTING forwarding to external servers is no longer working.



Internal PREROUTING forwarding works fine (eg: request comes in on port 80, it forwards to port 8080).



The OUTPUT chain also works (eg: we can connect outwards from the box via a local destination IP:8080, and the OUTPUT chain maps it to the Maintenance Server IP on a different server, port 8080, and returns a webpage).



However, any traffic coming into the box seems to die after the PREROUTING rule if the destination IP is external.



Here is an example of our setup:



Old Setup:




iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 9080 -j DNAT --to-destination $MAINTIP:8080
iptables -a FORWARD --in-interface eth0 -j ACCEPT
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING --out-interface eth0 -j MASQUERADE
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward


New Setup: (old setup in various formats tried as well..., trying to log eth0 and br0 packets)




iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 9080 -j DNAT --to-destination $MAINTIP:8080
iptables -a FORWARD --in-interface br0 -j ACCEPT
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING --out-interface br0 -j MASQUERADE
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward


Before changing to br0, the client request would go to server A at port 9080, and then be MASQUERADED off to a different server $MAINTIP.



As explained above, this works fine if $MAINTIP is on the same machine, but if it's on another server, the packet is never sent to $MAINTIP under the new br0 setup.



We want the packets to go out the same interface they came in on, MASQUERADED, as they did before we switched to using a single-NIC bridge (br0/bridge-utils).



I've tried adding logging at all stages in iptables. For some reason the iptables TRACE target doesn't work on this setup, so I can't get a TRACE log, but the packet shows up in the PREROUTING table, but seem to be silently dropped after that.



I've gone through this excellent document and have a better understanding of the flow between iptables and ebtables:
http://ebtables.sourceforge.net/br_fw_ia/br_fw_ia.html



From my understanding, it seems that the bridge is not forwarding the packets out the same interface they came in, and is dropping them. If we had a second interface added, I imagine it would be forwarding them out on that interface (the other side of the bridge) - which is the way bridges are meant to work ;-)



Is it possible to make this work the way we want it to, and PREROUTE/FORWARD those packets out over the same interface they came in on like we used to?



I'm hoping there are some ebtables rules which can work in conjunction with the iptables PREROUTING/FORWARD/POSTROUTING rules to make iptables forwarding work the way it usually does, and to send the routed packets out br0 (eth0) instead of dropping them.



Comments, flames, any and all advice welcome!



Best Regards,
Neale










share|improve this question




























    1















    We have a number of iptables rules for forwarding connections, which are solid and work well.



    For example, port 80 forwards to port 8080 on the same machine (the webserver). When a given webserver is restarting, we forward requests to another IP on port 8080 which displays a Maintenance Page. In most cases, this other IP is on a separate server.



    This all worked perfectly until we installed bridge-utils and changed to using a bridge br0 instead of eth0 as the interface.



    The reason we have converted to using a bridge interface is to gain access to the MAC SNAT/DNAT capabilities of ebtables. We have no other reason to add a bridge interface on the servers, as they don't actually bridge connections over multiple interfaces.



    I know this is a strange reason to add a bridge on the servers, but we are using the MAC SNAT/DNAT capabilities in a new project and ebtables seemed to be the safest, fastest and easiest way to go since we are already so familiar with iptables.



    The problem is, since converting to a br0 interface, iptables PREROUTING forwarding to external servers is no longer working.



    Internal PREROUTING forwarding works fine (eg: request comes in on port 80, it forwards to port 8080).



    The OUTPUT chain also works (eg: we can connect outwards from the box via a local destination IP:8080, and the OUTPUT chain maps it to the Maintenance Server IP on a different server, port 8080, and returns a webpage).



    However, any traffic coming into the box seems to die after the PREROUTING rule if the destination IP is external.



    Here is an example of our setup:



    Old Setup:




    iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 9080 -j DNAT --to-destination $MAINTIP:8080
    iptables -a FORWARD --in-interface eth0 -j ACCEPT
    iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING --out-interface eth0 -j MASQUERADE
    echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward


    New Setup: (old setup in various formats tried as well..., trying to log eth0 and br0 packets)




    iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 9080 -j DNAT --to-destination $MAINTIP:8080
    iptables -a FORWARD --in-interface br0 -j ACCEPT
    iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING --out-interface br0 -j MASQUERADE
    echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward


    Before changing to br0, the client request would go to server A at port 9080, and then be MASQUERADED off to a different server $MAINTIP.



    As explained above, this works fine if $MAINTIP is on the same machine, but if it's on another server, the packet is never sent to $MAINTIP under the new br0 setup.



    We want the packets to go out the same interface they came in on, MASQUERADED, as they did before we switched to using a single-NIC bridge (br0/bridge-utils).



    I've tried adding logging at all stages in iptables. For some reason the iptables TRACE target doesn't work on this setup, so I can't get a TRACE log, but the packet shows up in the PREROUTING table, but seem to be silently dropped after that.



    I've gone through this excellent document and have a better understanding of the flow between iptables and ebtables:
    http://ebtables.sourceforge.net/br_fw_ia/br_fw_ia.html



    From my understanding, it seems that the bridge is not forwarding the packets out the same interface they came in, and is dropping them. If we had a second interface added, I imagine it would be forwarding them out on that interface (the other side of the bridge) - which is the way bridges are meant to work ;-)



    Is it possible to make this work the way we want it to, and PREROUTE/FORWARD those packets out over the same interface they came in on like we used to?



    I'm hoping there are some ebtables rules which can work in conjunction with the iptables PREROUTING/FORWARD/POSTROUTING rules to make iptables forwarding work the way it usually does, and to send the routed packets out br0 (eth0) instead of dropping them.



    Comments, flames, any and all advice welcome!



    Best Regards,
    Neale










    share|improve this question
























      1












      1








      1


      2






      We have a number of iptables rules for forwarding connections, which are solid and work well.



      For example, port 80 forwards to port 8080 on the same machine (the webserver). When a given webserver is restarting, we forward requests to another IP on port 8080 which displays a Maintenance Page. In most cases, this other IP is on a separate server.



      This all worked perfectly until we installed bridge-utils and changed to using a bridge br0 instead of eth0 as the interface.



      The reason we have converted to using a bridge interface is to gain access to the MAC SNAT/DNAT capabilities of ebtables. We have no other reason to add a bridge interface on the servers, as they don't actually bridge connections over multiple interfaces.



      I know this is a strange reason to add a bridge on the servers, but we are using the MAC SNAT/DNAT capabilities in a new project and ebtables seemed to be the safest, fastest and easiest way to go since we are already so familiar with iptables.



      The problem is, since converting to a br0 interface, iptables PREROUTING forwarding to external servers is no longer working.



      Internal PREROUTING forwarding works fine (eg: request comes in on port 80, it forwards to port 8080).



      The OUTPUT chain also works (eg: we can connect outwards from the box via a local destination IP:8080, and the OUTPUT chain maps it to the Maintenance Server IP on a different server, port 8080, and returns a webpage).



      However, any traffic coming into the box seems to die after the PREROUTING rule if the destination IP is external.



      Here is an example of our setup:



      Old Setup:




      iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 9080 -j DNAT --to-destination $MAINTIP:8080
      iptables -a FORWARD --in-interface eth0 -j ACCEPT
      iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING --out-interface eth0 -j MASQUERADE
      echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward


      New Setup: (old setup in various formats tried as well..., trying to log eth0 and br0 packets)




      iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 9080 -j DNAT --to-destination $MAINTIP:8080
      iptables -a FORWARD --in-interface br0 -j ACCEPT
      iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING --out-interface br0 -j MASQUERADE
      echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward


      Before changing to br0, the client request would go to server A at port 9080, and then be MASQUERADED off to a different server $MAINTIP.



      As explained above, this works fine if $MAINTIP is on the same machine, but if it's on another server, the packet is never sent to $MAINTIP under the new br0 setup.



      We want the packets to go out the same interface they came in on, MASQUERADED, as they did before we switched to using a single-NIC bridge (br0/bridge-utils).



      I've tried adding logging at all stages in iptables. For some reason the iptables TRACE target doesn't work on this setup, so I can't get a TRACE log, but the packet shows up in the PREROUTING table, but seem to be silently dropped after that.



      I've gone through this excellent document and have a better understanding of the flow between iptables and ebtables:
      http://ebtables.sourceforge.net/br_fw_ia/br_fw_ia.html



      From my understanding, it seems that the bridge is not forwarding the packets out the same interface they came in, and is dropping them. If we had a second interface added, I imagine it would be forwarding them out on that interface (the other side of the bridge) - which is the way bridges are meant to work ;-)



      Is it possible to make this work the way we want it to, and PREROUTE/FORWARD those packets out over the same interface they came in on like we used to?



      I'm hoping there are some ebtables rules which can work in conjunction with the iptables PREROUTING/FORWARD/POSTROUTING rules to make iptables forwarding work the way it usually does, and to send the routed packets out br0 (eth0) instead of dropping them.



      Comments, flames, any and all advice welcome!



      Best Regards,
      Neale










      share|improve this question














      We have a number of iptables rules for forwarding connections, which are solid and work well.



      For example, port 80 forwards to port 8080 on the same machine (the webserver). When a given webserver is restarting, we forward requests to another IP on port 8080 which displays a Maintenance Page. In most cases, this other IP is on a separate server.



      This all worked perfectly until we installed bridge-utils and changed to using a bridge br0 instead of eth0 as the interface.



      The reason we have converted to using a bridge interface is to gain access to the MAC SNAT/DNAT capabilities of ebtables. We have no other reason to add a bridge interface on the servers, as they don't actually bridge connections over multiple interfaces.



      I know this is a strange reason to add a bridge on the servers, but we are using the MAC SNAT/DNAT capabilities in a new project and ebtables seemed to be the safest, fastest and easiest way to go since we are already so familiar with iptables.



      The problem is, since converting to a br0 interface, iptables PREROUTING forwarding to external servers is no longer working.



      Internal PREROUTING forwarding works fine (eg: request comes in on port 80, it forwards to port 8080).



      The OUTPUT chain also works (eg: we can connect outwards from the box via a local destination IP:8080, and the OUTPUT chain maps it to the Maintenance Server IP on a different server, port 8080, and returns a webpage).



      However, any traffic coming into the box seems to die after the PREROUTING rule if the destination IP is external.



      Here is an example of our setup:



      Old Setup:




      iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 9080 -j DNAT --to-destination $MAINTIP:8080
      iptables -a FORWARD --in-interface eth0 -j ACCEPT
      iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING --out-interface eth0 -j MASQUERADE
      echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward


      New Setup: (old setup in various formats tried as well..., trying to log eth0 and br0 packets)




      iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 9080 -j DNAT --to-destination $MAINTIP:8080
      iptables -a FORWARD --in-interface br0 -j ACCEPT
      iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING --out-interface br0 -j MASQUERADE
      echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward


      Before changing to br0, the client request would go to server A at port 9080, and then be MASQUERADED off to a different server $MAINTIP.



      As explained above, this works fine if $MAINTIP is on the same machine, but if it's on another server, the packet is never sent to $MAINTIP under the new br0 setup.



      We want the packets to go out the same interface they came in on, MASQUERADED, as they did before we switched to using a single-NIC bridge (br0/bridge-utils).



      I've tried adding logging at all stages in iptables. For some reason the iptables TRACE target doesn't work on this setup, so I can't get a TRACE log, but the packet shows up in the PREROUTING table, but seem to be silently dropped after that.



      I've gone through this excellent document and have a better understanding of the flow between iptables and ebtables:
      http://ebtables.sourceforge.net/br_fw_ia/br_fw_ia.html



      From my understanding, it seems that the bridge is not forwarding the packets out the same interface they came in, and is dropping them. If we had a second interface added, I imagine it would be forwarding them out on that interface (the other side of the bridge) - which is the way bridges are meant to work ;-)



      Is it possible to make this work the way we want it to, and PREROUTE/FORWARD those packets out over the same interface they came in on like we used to?



      I'm hoping there are some ebtables rules which can work in conjunction with the iptables PREROUTING/FORWARD/POSTROUTING rules to make iptables forwarding work the way it usually does, and to send the routed packets out br0 (eth0) instead of dropping them.



      Comments, flames, any and all advice welcome!



      Best Regards,
      Neale







      iptables






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Jun 14 '13 at 21:59









      Neale Rudd - Metawerx JavaNeale Rudd - Metawerx Java

      62




      62




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0














          When filtering on a bridge i think you need to use a different match for the interface in/out,
          in your case, in i understand your setup correctly, something like



          iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 9080 -j DNAT --to-destination $MAINTIP:8080
          iptables -a FORWARD -m physdev --physdev-in eth0 -j ACCEPT
          iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -m physdev --physdev-out eth0 -j MASQUERADE


          I don't think you need to enable ip_forward ... this is a bridge afterall



          last but not least



          echo 1 > net.bridge.bridge-nf-call-iptables


          make sure this is enabled , but it should by default.






          share|improve this answer
































            0














            I've faced with same issue a long time ago. There is the magic option hairpin on the bridge port interface, that implements this strange behaviour. If the hairpin disabled, then the frames won't be forwarded back through interface, through which these frames have been received.



            One more interesting thing about this issue: when the interface is moved out into the promisc mode, all work perfectly. Most funny part is in that, it happens when you run the tcpdump to try to troubleshoot the problem.






            share|improve this answer



























              Your Answer








              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "2"
              ;
              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: true,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              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
              );



              );













              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f515966%2febtables-iptables-bridge-utils-prerouting-forward-issue-on-single-nic-bridge%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              0














              When filtering on a bridge i think you need to use a different match for the interface in/out,
              in your case, in i understand your setup correctly, something like



              iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 9080 -j DNAT --to-destination $MAINTIP:8080
              iptables -a FORWARD -m physdev --physdev-in eth0 -j ACCEPT
              iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -m physdev --physdev-out eth0 -j MASQUERADE


              I don't think you need to enable ip_forward ... this is a bridge afterall



              last but not least



              echo 1 > net.bridge.bridge-nf-call-iptables


              make sure this is enabled , but it should by default.






              share|improve this answer





























                0














                When filtering on a bridge i think you need to use a different match for the interface in/out,
                in your case, in i understand your setup correctly, something like



                iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 9080 -j DNAT --to-destination $MAINTIP:8080
                iptables -a FORWARD -m physdev --physdev-in eth0 -j ACCEPT
                iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -m physdev --physdev-out eth0 -j MASQUERADE


                I don't think you need to enable ip_forward ... this is a bridge afterall



                last but not least



                echo 1 > net.bridge.bridge-nf-call-iptables


                make sure this is enabled , but it should by default.






                share|improve this answer



























                  0












                  0








                  0







                  When filtering on a bridge i think you need to use a different match for the interface in/out,
                  in your case, in i understand your setup correctly, something like



                  iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 9080 -j DNAT --to-destination $MAINTIP:8080
                  iptables -a FORWARD -m physdev --physdev-in eth0 -j ACCEPT
                  iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -m physdev --physdev-out eth0 -j MASQUERADE


                  I don't think you need to enable ip_forward ... this is a bridge afterall



                  last but not least



                  echo 1 > net.bridge.bridge-nf-call-iptables


                  make sure this is enabled , but it should by default.






                  share|improve this answer















                  When filtering on a bridge i think you need to use a different match for the interface in/out,
                  in your case, in i understand your setup correctly, something like



                  iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 9080 -j DNAT --to-destination $MAINTIP:8080
                  iptables -a FORWARD -m physdev --physdev-in eth0 -j ACCEPT
                  iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -m physdev --physdev-out eth0 -j MASQUERADE


                  I don't think you need to enable ip_forward ... this is a bridge afterall



                  last but not least



                  echo 1 > net.bridge.bridge-nf-call-iptables


                  make sure this is enabled , but it should by default.







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Jun 15 '13 at 15:12

























                  answered Jun 15 '13 at 1:05









                  przRoccoprzRocco

                  31614




                  31614























                      0














                      I've faced with same issue a long time ago. There is the magic option hairpin on the bridge port interface, that implements this strange behaviour. If the hairpin disabled, then the frames won't be forwarded back through interface, through which these frames have been received.



                      One more interesting thing about this issue: when the interface is moved out into the promisc mode, all work perfectly. Most funny part is in that, it happens when you run the tcpdump to try to troubleshoot the problem.






                      share|improve this answer





























                        0














                        I've faced with same issue a long time ago. There is the magic option hairpin on the bridge port interface, that implements this strange behaviour. If the hairpin disabled, then the frames won't be forwarded back through interface, through which these frames have been received.



                        One more interesting thing about this issue: when the interface is moved out into the promisc mode, all work perfectly. Most funny part is in that, it happens when you run the tcpdump to try to troubleshoot the problem.






                        share|improve this answer



























                          0












                          0








                          0







                          I've faced with same issue a long time ago. There is the magic option hairpin on the bridge port interface, that implements this strange behaviour. If the hairpin disabled, then the frames won't be forwarded back through interface, through which these frames have been received.



                          One more interesting thing about this issue: when the interface is moved out into the promisc mode, all work perfectly. Most funny part is in that, it happens when you run the tcpdump to try to troubleshoot the problem.






                          share|improve this answer















                          I've faced with same issue a long time ago. There is the magic option hairpin on the bridge port interface, that implements this strange behaviour. If the hairpin disabled, then the frames won't be forwarded back through interface, through which these frames have been received.



                          One more interesting thing about this issue: when the interface is moved out into the promisc mode, all work perfectly. Most funny part is in that, it happens when you run the tcpdump to try to troubleshoot the problem.







                          share|improve this answer














                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer








                          edited Jun 5 at 23:02

























                          answered Jun 5 at 21:12









                          Anton DanilovAnton Danilov

                          1,7531712




                          1,7531712



























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded
















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Server Fault!


                              • 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%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f515966%2febtables-iptables-bridge-utils-prerouting-forward-issue-on-single-nic-bridge%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

                              Wikipedia:Vital articles Мазмуну Biography - Өмүр баян Philosophy and psychology - Философия жана психология Religion - Дин Social sciences - Коомдук илимдер Language and literature - Тил жана адабият Science - Илим Technology - Технология Arts and recreation - Искусство жана эс алуу History and geography - Тарых жана география Навигация менюсу

                              Bruxelas-Capital Índice Historia | Composición | Situación lingüística | Clima | Cidades irmandadas | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegacióneO uso das linguas en Bruxelas e a situación do neerlandés"Rexión de Bruxelas Capital"o orixinalSitio da rexiónPáxina de Bruselas no sitio da Oficina de Promoción Turística de Valonia e BruxelasMapa Interactivo da Rexión de Bruxelas-CapitaleeWorldCat332144929079854441105155190212ID28008674080552-90000 0001 0666 3698n94104302ID540940339365017018237

                              What should I write in an apology letter, since I have decided not to join a company after accepting an offer letterShould I keep looking after accepting a job offer?What should I do when I've been verbally told I would get an offer letter, but still haven't gotten one after 4 weeks?Do I accept an offer from a company that I am not likely to join?New job hasn't confirmed starting date and I want to give current employer as much notice as possibleHow should I address my manager in my resignation letter?HR delayed background verification, now jobless as resignedNo email communication after accepting a formal written offer. How should I phrase the call?What should I do if after receiving a verbal offer letter I am informed that my written job offer is put on hold due to some internal issues?Should I inform the current employer that I am about to resign within 1-2 weeks since I have signed the offer letter and waiting for visa?What company will do, if I send their offer letter to another company