when doing somehitng like ip rule add fwmark 3 nat 200.42.75.183 table ppp0 prio 1 (the idea is that packets that match the fwmark 3 change their source address to 200.42.75.183)..it first apply the nat and then routes to table ppp0 right? in such case the, nat, why may be nat not being applyed? cause it doesnt work at all..it goes to that interface but does not nat the src address of the package. any idea? thanks _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Hello, On 4 Mar 2003, Esteban Ribicic wrote:> when doing somehitng like > ip rule add fwmark 3 nat 200.42.75.183 table ppp0 prio 1 > (the idea is that packets that match the fwmark 3 change their source > address to 200.42.75.183)..it first apply the nat and then routes to > table ppp0 right? > in such case the, nat, why may be nat not being applyed? > cause it doesnt work at all..it goes to that interface but does not nat > the src address of the package. > any idea?It is not supported but there is a patch: http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/#rtmasq Regards -- Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg> _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
julian, the patch stuff is making me crazy (i have four servers running iproute2).. i tryed to apply pathces on 2.4.20 in the following order so multipath, nat, fwmark works: routes-2.4.20-9.diff rtmasq-2.4.20-2.diff is the second patch necesary? i though the first (routes-2.4.20-9.diff) already patched the nat stuff. besides, if i apply the first patch, the second gives me an error applyeng the patch. what patches should apply for 2.4.20? thanks. On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 20:30, Julian Anastasov wrote:> > Hello, > > On 4 Mar 2003, Esteban Ribicic wrote: > > > when doing somehitng like > > ip rule add fwmark 3 nat 200.42.75.183 table ppp0 prio 1 > > (the idea is that packets that match the fwmark 3 change their source > > address to 200.42.75.183)..it first apply the nat and then routes to > > table ppp0 right? > > in such case the, nat, why may be nat not being applyed? > > cause it doesnt work at all..it goes to that interface but does not nat > > the src address of the package. > > any idea? > > It is not supported but there is a patch: > > http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/#rtmasq > > Regards > > -- > Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg> > >-- Esteban Ribicic Network Operation Center UOL-Sinectis S.A. Florida 537 Piso 6, Buenos Aires, Argentina +54-11-4321-9110 Ext 2503 +54-11-4321-9107 Directo eribicic@uolsinectis.com www.uolsinectis.com _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Hello, On 5 Mar 2003, Esteban Ribicic wrote:> julian, > the patch stuff is making me crazy (i have four servers running > iproute2).. > > i tryed to apply pathces on 2.4.20 in the following order so multipath, > nat, fwmark works: > > routes-2.4.20-9.diff > rtmasq-2.4.20-2.diffUse rtmasq-2.4.20-routes9-2.diff instead, I just uploaded it. Apply it after routes-2.4.20-9.diff and let me know offline if it compiles and works. Regards -- Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg> _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
ive got some strange error: (after ip route patches where applyed)
root@debian:~# ip route get 172.0.0.2
Truncated message
root@debian:~#
root@debian:~# strace ip route get 172.0.0.2
execve("/sbin/ip", ["ip", "route",
"get", "172.0.0.2"], [/* 18 vars */])
= 0
uname({sys="Linux", node="debian", ...}) = 0
brk(0) = 0x805dc24
old_mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS,
-1, 0) = 0x4001300
0
open("/etc/ld.so.preload", O_RDONLY) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or
directory)
open("/etc/ld.so.cache", O_RDONLY) = 3
fstat64(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=46113, ...}) = 0
old_mmap(NULL, 46113, PROT_READ, MAP_PRIVATE, 3, 0) = 0x40014000
close(3) = 0
open("/lib/libresolv.so.2", O_RDONLY) = 3
read(3,
"\177ELF\1\1\1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\3\0\3\0\1\0\0\0\300\''\0"...,
1024) = 1024
fstat64(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=56448, ...}) = 0
old_mmap(NULL, 65252, PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC, MAP_PRIVATE, 3, 0) 0x40020000
mprotect(0x4002d000, 12004, PROT_NONE) = 0
old_mmap(0x4002d000, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED,
3, 0xd000) = 0x4
002d000
old_mmap(0x4002e000, 7908, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1
, 0) = 0x4002e000
close(3) = 0
open("/lib/libc.so.6", O_RDONLY) = 3
read(3, "\177ELF\1\1\1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\3\0\3\0\1\0\0\0\204\221"...,
1024) = 1024
fstat64(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0755, st_size=1145456, ...}) = 0
old_mmap(NULL, 1157888, PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC, MAP_PRIVATE, 3, 0) 0x40030000
mprotect(0x40141000, 39680, PROT_NONE) = 0
old_mmap(0x40141000, 24576, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED,
3, 0x111000) =
0x40141000
old_mmap(0x40147000, 15104, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -
1, 0) = 0x40147000
close(3) = 0
munmap(0x40014000, 46113) = 0
socket(PF_NETLINK, SOCK_RAW, 0) = 3
bind(3, {sin_family=AF_NETLINK, {sa_family=16,
sa_data="\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\236\224\0@"
}, 12) = 0
getsockname(3, {sin_family=AF_NETLINK, {sa_family=16,
sa_data="\307\314\f{\0\0\0\0\0\0\2
36\224\0@"}, [12]) = 0
time(NULL) = 1047045789
sendto(3, "\24\0\0\0\22\0\1\3\236\246h>\0\0\0\0\0,\1@", 20, 0,
{sin_family=AF_NETLINK, {
sa_family=16, sa_data="\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\24\0\0\0"}, 12) = 20
recvmsg(3, {msg_name(12)={sin_family=AF_NETLINK, {sa_family=16,
sa_data="\377\377\0\0\0\
0\0\0\0\0\264\0\0\0"},
msg_iov(1)=[{"\264\0\0\0\20\0\2\0\236\246h>\f{\0\0\0\0\4\3\1\0\0\
0I\0"..., 8192}], msg_controllen=0, msg_flags=0}, 0) = 740
brk(0) = 0x805dc24
brk(0x805dc64) = 0x805dc64
brk(0x805e000) = 0x805e000
recvmsg(3, {msg_name(12)={sin_family=AF_NETLINK, {sa_family=16,
sa_data="\377\377\0\0\0\
0\0\0\0\0\24\0\0\0"},
msg_iov(1)=[{"\24\0\0\0\3\0\2\0\236\246h>\f{\0\0\0\0\0\0\1\0\0\0I\
0\0"..., 8192}], msg_controllen=0, msg_flags=0}, 0) = 20
sendmsg(3, {msg_name(12)={sin_family=AF_NETLINK, {sa_family=16,
sa_data="\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
0\0\0\254\374\377\277"},
msg_iov(1)=[{"$\0\0\0\32\0\1\0\237\246h>\0\0\0\0\2 \0\0\0\0\0\0
\0\0\0"..., 36}], msg_controllen=0, msg_flags=0}, 0) = 36
recvmsg(3, {msg_name(12)={sin_family=AF_NETLINK, {sa_family=16,
sa_data="\377\377\0\0\0\
0\0\0\0\0\254\374\377\277"},
msg_iov(1)=[{"l\0\0\0\30\0\0\0\237\246h>\f{\0\0\2 \0\0\376\
0\0\1\0\2"..., 36}], msg_controllen=0, msg_flags=MSG_TRUNC}, 0) = 36
write(2, "Truncated message\n", 18Truncated message
) = 18
_exit(2) = ?
root@debian:~#
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 19:58, Julian Anastasov wrote:>
> Hello,
>
> On 5 Mar 2003, Esteban Ribicic wrote:
>
> > julian,
> > the patch stuff is making me crazy (i have four servers running
> > iproute2)..
> >
> > i tryed to apply pathces on 2.4.20 in the following order so
multipath,
> > nat, fwmark works:
> >
> > routes-2.4.20-9.diff
> > rtmasq-2.4.20-2.diff
>
> Use rtmasq-2.4.20-routes9-2.diff instead, I just uploaded it.
> Apply it after routes-2.4.20-9.diff and let me know offline if it
> compiles and works.
>
> Regards
>
> --
> Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>
>
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Hello, On 7 Mar 2003, Esteban Ribicic wrote:> ive got some strange error: (after ip route patches where applyed) > > root@debian:~# ip route get 172.0.0.2 > Truncated messageEven after kernel is fully recompiled? The patches change headers, so make is not enough. Regards -- Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg> _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
i fully recompilled the kernel. greets On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 11:13, Julian Anastasov wrote:> > Hello, > > On 7 Mar 2003, Esteban Ribicic wrote: > > > ive got some strange error: (after ip route patches where applyed) > > > > root@debian:~# ip route get 172.0.0.2 > > Truncated message > > Even after kernel is fully recompiled? The patches change > headers, so make is not enough. > > Regards > > -- > Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg> > > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ >-- Esteban Ribicic Network Operation Center UOL-Sinectis S.A. Florida 537 Piso 6, Buenos Aires, Argentina +54-11-4321-9110 Ext 2503 +54-11-4321-9107 Directo eribicic@uolsinectis.com www.uolsinectis.com _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/