Feature #10446
open
VIP address is not shown in firewall rules
0%
Description
Good day
I noticed that VIP address(Type: IP Alias) is not shown in Source/Destination drop-down menu in Firewall rules.
At the same time it is displayed in NAT >> Port Forward rules in Source/Destination drop-down menu.
Example in attached screenshots.
2.4.5-RELEASE (amd64)
Files
Updated by Jim Pingle about 4 years ago
- Tracker changed from Bug to Feature
- Category changed from Virtual IP Addresses to Rules / NAT
- Priority changed from Normal to Very Low
- Affected Version deleted (
2.4.5)
It's not a bug, but perhaps a feature request.
It's generally not necessary on firewall rules because they don't have the same requirements that need to be met by NAT rules. Firewall rules can match anything, whereas NAT rules require VIPs (in most cases) when not used with interface addresses.
Plus, if you're using NAT on a VIP, you wouldn't use the VIP address in a firewall rule anyhow.
Updated by Silmor Senedlen about 4 years ago
Jim Pingle wrote:
It's not a bug, but perhaps a feature request.
OK, let it be a feature request.
I think it would be nice to be able to select VIP address from list(which automatically update it's value when it will be changed in Firewall >> Virtual IPs section) instead of specifying static value.
Updated by Corey Boyle over 3 years ago
Would be nice for controlling access to local services like HAProxy.
Updated by Silmor Senedlen almost 2 years ago
Silmor Senedlen wrote in #note-2:
I think it would be nice to be able to select VIP address from list(which automatically update it's value when it will be changed in Firewall >> Virtual IPs section) instead of specifying static value.
Is there any hope that this will be implemented?
Updated by Marcos M almost 2 years ago
Silmor Senedlen wrote in #note-4:
Silmor Senedlen wrote in #note-2:
I think it would be nice to be able to select VIP address from list(which automatically update it's value when it will be changed in Firewall >> Virtual IPs section) instead of specifying static value.
Is there any hope that this will be implemented?
Better to stick with using aliases. VIPs are more for service bindings.
Updated by Silmor Senedlen almost 2 years ago
Marcos Mendoza wrote in #note-5:
Better to stick with using aliases. VIPs are more for service bindings.
This will require maintaining and making changes to 2 entities at once instead of one.
Considering that in both sections(NAT & Rules) there is an opportunity to select an entity with an interface address, I believe that it would be just as logical to make VIP available for selection in both sections(NAT & Rules).
Is the reason а principled position or is it due to the fact that such a implementation will require a lot of code changes?