What I’m looking to do is to route WAN traffic from my personal wireguard server through a gluetun container. So that I can connect a client my personal wireguard server and have my traffic still go through the gluetun VPN as follows:
client <–> wireguard container <–> gluetun container <–> WAN
I’ve managed to set both the wireguard and gluetun container up in a docker-compose file and made sure they both work independently (I can connect a client the the wireguard container and the gluetun container is successfully connecting to my paid VPN for WAN access). However, I cannot get route traffic from the wireguard container through the gluetun container.
Since I’ve managed to set both up independently I don’t believe that there is an issue with the docker-compose file I used for setup. What I believe to be the issue is either the routing rules in my wireguard container, or the firewall rules on the gluetun container.
I tried following this linuxserver.io guide to get the following wg0.conf template for my wireguard container:
[Interface]
Address = ${INTERFACE}.1
ListenPort = 51820
PrivateKey = $(cat /config/server/privatekey-server)
PostUp = iptables -A FORWARD -i %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -A FORWARD -o %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth+ -j MASQUERADE
# Adds fwmark 51820 to any packet traveling through interface wg0
PostUp = wg set wg0 fwmark 51820
# If a packet is not marked with fwmark 51820 (not coming through the wg connection) it will be routed to the table "51820".
# PostUp = ip -4 rule add not fwmark 51820 table 51820
# Creates a table ("51820") which routes all traffic through the gluetun container
PostUp = ip -4 route add 0.0.0.0/0 via 172.22.0.100
# If the traffic is destined for the subnet 192.168.1.0/24 (internal) send it through the default gateway.
PostUp = ip -4 route add 192.168.1.0/24 via 172.22.0.1
PostDown = iptables -D FORWARD -i %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -D FORWARD -o %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -o eth+ -j MASQUERADE
Along with the default firewall rules of the gluetun container
Chain INPUT (policy DROP 13 packets, 1062 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
15170 1115K ACCEPT 0 -- lo * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0
14403 12M ACCEPT 0 -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED
1 60 ACCEPT 0 -- eth0 * 0.0.0.0/0 172.22.0.0/24
Chain FORWARD (policy DROP 4880 packets, 396K bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain OUTPUT (policy DROP 360 packets, 25560 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
15170 1115K ACCEPT 0 -- * lo 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0
12716 1320K 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 68.235.48.107 udp dpt:1637
1349 81068 ACCEPT 0 -- * tun0 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0
When I run the wireguard container with this configuration I can successfully connect my client however I cannot connect to any website, or ping any IP.
During my debugging process I ran tcpdump on the docker network both containers are in which showed me that my client is successfully sending packets to the wireguard container, but that no packets were sent from my wireguard container to the gluetun container. The closest I got to this was the following line:
17:27:38.871259 IP 10.13.13.1.domain > 10.13.13.2.41280: 42269 ServFail- 0/0/0 (28)
Which I believe is telling me that the wireguard server is trying, and failing, to send packets back to the client.
I also checked the firewall rules of the gluetun container and got the following results:
Chain INPUT (policy DROP 13 packets, 1062 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
18732 1376K ACCEPT 0 -- lo * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0
16056 12M ACCEPT 0 -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED
1 60 ACCEPT 0 -- eth0 * 0.0.0.0/0 172.22.0.0/24
Chain FORWARD (policy DROP 5386 packets, 458K bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain OUTPUT (policy DROP 360 packets, 25560 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
18732 1376K ACCEPT 0 -- * lo 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0
14929 1527K 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 68.235.48.107 udp dpt:1637
1660 99728 ACCEPT 0 -- * tun0 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0
Which shows that the firewall for the gluetun container is dropping all FORWARD traffic which (as I understand it) is the sort of traffic I’m trying to set up. What is odd is that I don’t see any of those packets in the tcpdump of the docker network.
Has anyone successfully set this up or have any indication on what I should try next? At this point any ideas would be helpful, whether that be more debugging steps or recommendations for routing/firewall rules.
While there have been similar posts on this topic (Here and Here) the responses on both did not really help me.
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
MASQUERADENAT 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
MASQUERADENAT rule in place, runningtcpdumpon 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 64but I still cannot get any internet access through the wireguard tunnel.
When exploring around the gluetun config I confirmed that the
MASQUERADErule 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 0.0.0.0/0I 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 0.0.0.0/0I tried adding simple iptables rules such as
iptables -A FORWARD -i tun+ -j ACCEPT(and the same witheth+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.