search for: fwmarked

I''m having trouble routing on high fwmarks, I want to use a lot of different marks for 2 routes so that I can QoS based on the marks ip rule looks like this: 0: from all lookup local 32751: from all fwmark 31 lookup dslout 32752: from all fwmark 30 lookup dslout 32753: from all fwmark 29 lookup dslout 32754: from all fwmark 28 lookup dslout 32755: from

hi I have trying to remove the extra rules from my routing tables, however with no luck Also I want to know these duplicate entries have an effect on packets going routed? I have this overwhelming rules lists from my predessor who added the "ip rule add fwmark" entries in firewall script, and on each run of firewall script its creates an extra entry in routing table. Now what I want to

hi thanks for your reply heh "Example: ip del rule pref 32742" is syntically wrong :) and when i tried "ip rule del 32742" it gives me error # ip rule del 32742 Error: argument "32742" is wrong: Failed to parse rule type so how to get get of these extra rules? 0: from all lookup local 32742: from all fwmark 0x2 lookup squid.out 32743: from all fwmark 0x2

Hi list, I''m new to this list, I just subscribed because I have some ackward about IPRoute2. First, while playing with NetFilter'' "MARK" target, I met a weird behaviour once I tried to use this marks in the RPDB : the packets where successfully marked, but it seemed that RPDB didn''t succed in matching them (for those who already know the answer, I only used

Hello all, I need a virtual firewall/router solution. I''m thinking of a netscreen 1000 but I want to know if it can be done in Linux. Here is my idea: 1 Linux box 2 GigE interfaces 1 interface setup with a public IP address ($PUBIP) 1 interface setup with 802.1q VLAN trunking with 100 vlans assigned ($VLAN1-$VLAN100) a /25 subnet routed to $PUBIP from my core routers All $VLAN

Could someone comment on the benefits of using CLASSIFY vs fwmark (or vice versa) in iptables? I''m getting ready to implement some basic tc for VoIP and most of the examples seem to use the (older?) fwmark syntax. Should I convert these to CLASSIFY? Can the two syntaxes be mixed? Also with U32? TIA, Edwin -- <=+=+=+==+=+=+==+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=> Edwin Whitelaw, P.E. New River

Hello! This arguments never run on my system, but I need this: #!/bin/bash -x echo "1" iptables -t mangle -p tcp -d 0/0 --dport 80 -j MARK --set-mark 2 echo "2" echo "201 T1" >> /etc/iproute2/rt_tables echo "3" ip rule add fwmark 2 table T1 echo "4" ip route add default via 192.168.21.2 dev eth1 table T1 echo "5" ip route

Hi everybody, I''m trying to set up routing for 2 links to the internet on a box which produces traffic itself (e.g. DNS) and will route all our local traffic. AS one route is quick and expensive and the other one slow and cheap, I want to be able to route packets for some high-level protocols to the second link. If I correctly understood table 3-2 in

Hi all, Below is my network diagram: - eth0 (adsl 1) eth1 (adsl 2) | | | | | | | | ----------------- | | | Gateway | | | ----------------- | | | tun0 Below is my iptables scripting to mark certain ports: -

Hello.. How can I specify a class for htb based on a fwmark and user ip ? For instance: I have some routes marked with fwmark and their are very-high speed connections... But only to some IP''s.. For the rest , I must limit the user to 64Kbits Now , how can I limit the high speed connections ? I must create a rule and take in account both fwmark and IP ? To be more specific , I want

Hello all, I am working with kernel 2.2.20 with the necessary options configured into the kernel to support all of the wonderfully fancy routing features: - routing based on ToS - routing based on fwmark - multiple routing tables This same kernel is in use elsewhere, and is routing based on fwmark with success. This leads me to believe that my kernel is OK and that I have another

Hi all, I need to route local generated packages depending on which tcp or udp service I need to use. To accomplish this I have configured two routing tables: [root at lothlorien ~]# ip ru ls 0: from all lookup 255 32762: from all fwmark 0x2 lookup FirstLan 32763: from all fwmark 0x1 lookup SecondLan 32764: from 172.25.80.10 lookup SecondLan 32765: from 172.25.70.18 lookup FirstLan

Hello all, I do not read C very well (especially kernel C). Though I have tried to muddle my way through an understanding of what''s going on in fib_hash.c, fib_rules.c, and route.c, I have not succeeded to my satisfaction, hence my post. I''m trying to document the general process of route selection, and have come up with the following overview. Could somebody point out any

We currently use iptables, matching packets based on IP address and marking them with an ID. Multiple IP addresses can be marked with the same ID. We then filter based on the ID. We have close to 2000 filters now and I''m looking into hashing tables. Is there any way to create a hashing filter based on the fwmark? Paul C. Diem PCDiem@FoxValley.net

I would like to route ssh in my network via DSL2 and all other trafic via DSL1. So far I menaged to do it for LAN2 but there are still WLAN1,LAN3 and LAN1 to go. On all routers I added table "pilicka" with rule for fwmark and I fwmarked ssh. # ip rule show 0: from all lookup local 32765: from all fwmark 0x3 lookup pilicka 32766: from all lookup main 32767: from all lookup default # iptables -L -t mangle Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination MARK tcp -- anywhere...

Hi, Here I am trying something simple. My objective is to make ip rule fwmark command work :) Network Diagram: --- 192.168.250.197 (eth0) Linux Box (eth1) 192.168.8.88 -------------192.168.8.122 (eth0) Windows XP Client Configuration done on Linux Box:- (1) [root@g webauth]# iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -j MARK --set-mark 5 [root@g webauth]# iptables -t mangle -L Chain PREROUTING (policy

Witam wszystkich After few days with yours help I''ve succeeded with setup of load-balancing. Now I have problem with next step. I want to mark some packets and than put them to the one of the routing tables to force them going via only one interface with only one ip. Easy?? Ofcourse, but not for me :(. I''m NOT using NAT. Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 71 packets, 24227

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63 Summary: fwmark loopback routing issue Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.4.x Platform: i386 OS/Version: RedHat Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: ip_tables (kernel) AssignedTo:

I made a script to test if in a moultiple gateway setup all default connection are up, regardless of the fact that that gateway is the default gw. Suppose adsl1 and adsl2 are present, and all traffic goes by default to adsl1, and you want to test if adsl2 is ok. 1. I use mangles from iptables to mark icmp packets to some test machines 2. I set up a routing table for each adsl 3. I use

I've managed to configure a LVS Cluster to act as a transparent proxy squid farm, with a virtual server as load balancer, and three real servers. Because redirecting packets going to port 80 to port 3128 of squid in the load balancer doesn't works, the solution has a mix of ip route and iptables. Here is the script I wrote to configure transparent proxy. #!/bin/bash #Transparent proxy