search for: connmarks

Hi.... I''m trying to setup a LAN router with P2P filter but the problem is that can''t "catch" Ares. There is a way to DROP "ares" p2p packets ? I''ve tried with last "ipp2p" snapshot without sucess... I''ve Kernel 2.4.28 iptables 1.3.0 Various Patches from patch-o-matic-ng-20040621 iproute2-ss020116 IMQ Patch Esfq Patch

Hi, as per the shorewall MultiISP documentation ( http://www1.shorewall.net/MultiISP.html ), it says "Use of this feature requires that your kernel and iptables include CONNMARK target and connmark match support (Warning: Standard Debian™ and Ubuntu™ kernels are lacking that support!)." it means MultiISP wont work properly if i am using Ubuntu server. if yes whats the

Hello everybody. i have the folowing problem: i have this in the top of PREROUTING chain in mangle table iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -j CONNMARK --set-mark 0 # rule 1 iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -m connmark --mark 5 # rule 2 iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -m connmark --mark 6 # rule 3 i think when packet is passing trough my POSTROUTING in mangle table

Hey, one more question for ipp2p iptables -t mangle -A DSL-IN -p tcp -m ipp2p --ipp2p -j CONNMARK --restore-mark iptables -t mangle -A DSL-IN -p tcp -m mark ! --mark 0 -j ACCEPT iptables -t mangle -A DSL-IN -p tcp -m ipp2p --ipp2p -j MARK --set-mark 7 iptables -t mangle -A DSL-IN -p tcp -m ipp2p --ipp2p -j CONNMARK --save-mark iptables -t mangle -A DSL-IN -p udp -m ipp2p --ipp2p -j MARK

Hi all, Whenever I start up TC and implement traffic policing using ingress, I get logs that goes something like this: Classifier actions preferred over ingress. What does that mean?? This are the relevent lines : tc qdisc add dev $DEV handle ffff: ingress tc filter add dev $DEV parent ffff: protocol ip prio 50 u32 match ip src 0.0.0.0/0 police rate ${DOWNLINK}kbit burst 10k drop flowid :1

I saw this snippet from Daniel Chemko dchemko@smgtec.com Mon, 31 May 2004 09:30:43 -0700 # Egress marking (mostly for QOS operations) iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -j CONNMARK --restore-mark iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -m mark ! --mark 0 -j ACCEPT iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -o ${if_inet} --dport 21 -j MARK --set-mark 0x111 iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -j CONNMARK

# iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -m mark --mark ! 0 -j ACCEPT iptables v1.3.3: Bad MARK value `!'' I''m puzzled, what''s wrong with this syntax? kernel is 2.6.15.7-ubuntu1 Thanks Francesco

Hi, I''ve been implementing a load balancing solution using CONNMARK, based on solution described by Luciano Ruete at [1]. Gracias por el post y por apuntar en la dirección correcta Luciano! Once implemented, I''ve found that due to some reason packets aren''t properly marked (or improperly remarked) and sent out using the wrong interface. My topo setup is:

I am trying to get IPP2P working on my router. Thus far I can see connections being marked (see below), but they don''t seem to get saved or something. When looking at /proc/net/ip_conntrack, nothing has anything other than 0 for mark. The iptables commands for this are: iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -j CONNMARK --restore-mark iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -m mark ! --mark 0 -j

Hello list, I just wonder if someone did any performance tests (speed of processing the packets) or maybe could advise about this two scenario: 1. packets are marked with iptables and processed by tc using filters 2. packets are sent by iptables directly to tc using CLASSIFY chain, thus avoiding the tc filters I had some thinking about these two ways of dealing with egress traffic and my

Hi there, i have some questions regarding CONNMARK and STRING modules for netfilter. I have a stateful firewall doing contraking, because i have two dsl connections doing load balancing. I have found a way to discriminate KaZaA traffic flowing via port 80 from normal HTTP traffic using the string match. I want to mark a kazaa connection and filter ir to a specific qdisc. I have been looking

-----Original Message----- From: Salim S I [mailto:salim.si@cipherium.com.tw] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 5:22 PM To: ''Francis Brosnan Blazquez'' Subject: RE: [LARTC] Load balancing using connmark "I think the main advantage of shorewall solution is that it applies connmark to incoming packets from the wan as you point, leaving load balancing to outgoing connections to the

Hi, I have a linux box which balances load between two interfaces ( say WAN1 and WAN2). I have masquerading on for any request coming from LAN to the outside world. The setup is in such a way that WAN1 drops packets with source ip belonging to WAN2''s network and viceversa. For some strange reason, I find that packet coming out from the WAN interface has source address of WAN2 and

...en on bare metal with the same kernel. 4.8.13-1-default is the last symptom-free kernel; the problem began after I updated to 4.9.9-default and continued in 4.10.1-1-default. (I'm using a more recent kernel than the distro to get support for a wireless NIC and a touchpad.) My firewall sets connmarks, which are not matched when they should be. Hoping for a quick fix I revised the code to use connlabels, which also are not matched. I wrote two files of test rules which set a connmark or connlabel, then accept the packet if it has the mark or label, and drop it otherwise. All packets (ipv6-icmp...

Hi! I''m wondering whether anyone has successfully set up a bandwidth control system using ipp2p and shorewall. I have been able to drop connecions altogether, but I don''t seem to be able to get CONNMARK working with ipp2p. Any pointers would be greatly appreciated :) ______________________________ Mario R. Pizzolanti

Hello, I have finished setting up the load balancer with IPROUTE ... also patch the kernel to support DGD and now it''s working fine with the valuable guide at LARTC website, Julian Anastasov, and the kind people in this mailing list. Now I would like to launch a web server and a ftp server to the public but I''m stuck into a problem and really need your help. Currently internal

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=968 Summary: CONNMARK failing open silently? Product: netfilter/iptables Version: unspecified Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Ubuntu Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: nf_conntrack AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at lists.netfilter.org

Hi, I'm using IPSEC in a multi-ISP configuration, lsm 0.131, Kernel 2.6.32, ipsec-tools 0.8.0 This worked fine with Shorewall/Shorewall-Lite 4.5.7. After updating Shorewall to 4.5.8 the routing of ESP packets doesn't work. If I change the Providers.pm file and add connmark => "! --mark 0/$mask" like before in Shorewall 4.5.7 than everything works fine. add_ijump

Hi, I want to classify with ipp2p packets that I''ve captured with tcpdump. I send the packets with tcpreply. I had to create a bridge interface in order to enable the listening interface in promiscous mode and to classify the traffic mirrored to that. In this mode the traffic pass through the prerouting chain of the mangle table (on bridge). I want to used connmark for recognized flows,

I am trying to apply the new :T flag in tcrules. the man page for this file [1] sayas that if SOURCE is $FW then rules are applied in OUTPUT. this doesn''t seem to work on my setup. I have in tcrules : ------------------------------------------------------------------------ RESTORE:T 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 all - - - 0 CONTINUE:T 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0