similar to: connmark and masquerading

Hi all, I have a little problem with my home-made slackware linux server. Here is the scenario: 1. I have a local wifi network 2. my server do masquerading and exit in internet via a PPPoE connection Goals: 1. not use SQUID 2. shaping the traffic with classes 3. emule connection must have minimum priority and a band-limit of 10KBytes/s in uplink (server--->internet) Any idea? Thx, Diego --

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

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

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

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

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,

What are the pros and cons of using CONNMARK along with the Multiple ISP Links and Load Balancing method as suggested in the HOWTO and with Julian''s patches for Dead Gateway Detection ? I have been observing excellent results without the CONNMARK rules. How is the performance affected if CONNMARK is used ? Thanks, Manish

Hi, I'm running CentOS 4 with most of the latest updates, but am having trouble with iptables and the CONNMARK target. Is it available in the CentOS 4 kernel? Running on i386: kernel: 2.6.9-67.0.4.ELsmp iptables: v1.2.11 # iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -j CONNMARK --set-mark 1 iptables: No chain/target/match by that name I see I do have the CONNMARK lib in

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

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! Maybe someone needs connmark and connbytes working together? See attached file compatible with pom-ng-20040621 (I called it connmarkbytes :)). Kind Regards, Tomasz Chilinski

Hello Everyone, I'm making an load balance ,on output packages IP from my firewall to Internet, with netfilter connmark and statistic match modules. it's necessary those two modules togethers to do the load balance on connection state. well I'm using CentOS 5.6 and I've searching on Internet but haven't found any package RPM that.this package come with iptables 1.4.x version

Hello I''m trying to switch from IMQ to IFB but I have a problem with traffic marked by ipp2p module. Looks like when traffic is redirected from ethX to ifbX it looses information about MARK. Here''s what I do to get ingress traffic to go to ifb interface: $TC qdisc add dev eth1.42 ingress $TC filter add dev eth1.42 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 10 u32 \ match u32 0 0

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1128 Bug ID: 1128 Summary: ip6_tables connmark or connlabel never matches Product: netfilter/iptables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: SuSE Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: ip6_tables (kernel)

Hi All, It''s an old problem and still isn''t fixed :( I need the connection marking support to enable the triplet of ISP''s we use. However, I downloaded the latest 2.6.22.1 kernel, made an RPM and installed it. I see the following kernel modules (which looks promising): /lib/modules/2.6.22.1/kernel/net/netfilter xt_connmark.ko xt_CONNMARK.ko Which yields the

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:

Howdy, I tried tackling this on irc with Ivo, but I suspect that irc may really not be the best medium for technical discussions, so I'll reprise it here. I am trying to duplicate the "tinc from behind a masquerading firewall" example from the tinc web site: (home) <--> (masquerading firewall) <--> (office) 192.168.1.21 192.168.1.1/1.2.3.4

hi, I am using shorewall 2.0.14 on debian and it is working but for a small problem. I want to allow masquerading only for a few ips in the network to some certain site for ftp, ssh etc. Masquerading will be blocked for other users amd they will access internet thru proxy server. How can I do this ? thanks. wrodrigues. Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.