similar to: multi-interface problems

Hi All, I''ve configured a mutlipath as detailed in the HOWTO. For the most part it''s great, but when the cheap DSL line drops it''s connection, as it regularly does, the outbound routing doesn''t automatically use the remaining path for internal outbound traffic. Ip route show lists no default route once the default path dies, and if the ppp connection is

I have two ISP connections, and am having some issues. I can connect to any services on the firewall, like the smtp gateway, but anything on the internal server only works from one connection. The lartc guide has a good example for what to do for services on the box, but leaves it open for how to handle services on an internal host. I''ve tried using iptables to mark the packets

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

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 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. Contents: 1) Introduction 2) 2 Questions * Introduction: I used this HOWTO to use multiple providers. http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html The box is a load balancer, using the Linux Virtual Server. We have a problem with lost connections, and it seems you get issues when you combine this setup with DNAT [1]. The proposed solution [1] is to use these rules to mark

Hi all! I''ve got 2 (soon 3) internet connection. 1 - via ADSL, 2(and3) via ppp My network: http://desima.objectis.net/network-diag linux1: user1.user2 eth0=192.168.1.1 ppp0=192.168.5.2( gw 192.168.5.1) gw=192.168.1.2 ( thru ADSL) compA=192.168.1.6 compB=192.168.1.15 gw2=192.168.1.217 via ppp to different ISP All works for compA and CompB, user1 should use default gw(192.168.1.2)

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

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

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

Hello, LARTC mailing readers, I hope u can help with this mysterious issue i''m having with my linux box acting as a router. Scenario: Linux running 2.6.8.1 /w julians patches Latest iproute (iproute2-ss040702) 4 NICS ----------------- | x eth0 (63.43.x.x) network mask (255.255.240.0) | | x eth1 (63.43.x.x)

Hello, LARTC mailing readers, I hope u can help with this mysterious issue i''m having with my linux box acting as a router. Scenario: Linux running 2.6.8.1 /w julians patches /w support for multipath routing Latest iproute (iproute2-ss040702) 4 NICS ----------------- | x eth0 (63.43.x.x) network mask (255.255.240.0) | |

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 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

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

Hello, I have tested a simple thing in two version of Linux and there was a problem when I have used fwmark as a selector for rule lookups. As you can see below on the Slack, the <test> table doesn''t have any label about fwmark. Is there an iproute problem? -------------------------------------- # cat /etc/fedora-release Fedora Core release 2 (Tettnang) # uname -r 2.6.5-1.358 #

Hi there, I got the solution for my problem, and thought may at someday somebody could use it. Julian Anastasov and some people from the LVS mailing list helped me with it. --- Subject: Re: LVS and CBQ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:53:01 +0000 (GMT) From: Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg> To: joern maier <joern.maier@informatik.uni-ulm.de> CC:

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

Here''s my situation: I''ve got an Intel machine running a 2.6.9 linux kernel and this box has 4 modems attached to it via a usb to serial port expander. In order to force data down each of the modems, some pretty simple rules are used and they are as follows: iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport $PORT1 -j MARK --set-mark 1 iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport