Displaying 20 results from an estimated 6000 matches similar to: "Match packet mark with --set-mark to ip rule fwmark"
2004 Jan 14
0
Precedence of iptables chain, local routing table and newly created routing table
Hi,
I been trying on ip rule fwmark and iptables MARK.
I will show my testing in detail, but my ultimate question is why ONLY marking in Mangle OUTPUT tables works, but not others?
Network Diagram
------------ 192.168.250.197 eth0 LINUX ROUTER eth1 192.168.8.88 ------------------ 192.168.8.112 eth0 Windows XP Client
Steps (performed on LINUX ROUTER)
(1) Delete route to 192.168.8.0 from
2004 Jan 16
0
NAT with ip rule and ip route
Hi,
I am trying to achieve Stateless NAT with ip rule and ip route. Thanks to LARTC doc, I have done it :)
But, I have a lot of client wanted access to Internet, setting up 2 rules for each of them is not desirable.
For example I have 2 clients:
Current setting:
[root@son-ag webauth]# ip ru
0: from all lookup local
32760: from 192.168.8.113 lookup main map-to 192.168.250.113
32761:
2006 Mar 31
0
rule fwmark desn''t work for local packets (output chain)
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
2010 Oct 13
3
Routing local generted packets with fwmark
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
2003 Mar 04
2
Routing based on fwmark
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
2005 Oct 30
0
FWMARK ROUTING OVER MULTIPLE ROUTERS/LANS
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
2004 Nov 23
4
how to remove rules
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
2006 Feb 06
0
ip rule, fwmark, mangle and src IP
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
2003 Oct 31
0
Policy routing with IPTABLES MARK (please help me)
Hello,
I have a LINUX server with two internet connections available.
I want all the traffic to go over the default route, but HTTP traffic
to go over ISP2 line.
Interfaces:
eth1 192.168.2.254 - LAN 192.168.2.x
ppp0 x.x.x.106 - remote gateway x.x.x.6 - ISP1 (default route)
eth0 192.168.164.254 - remote gateway 192.168.164.113 - ISP2 (a
hardware router)
I have the following configuration:
echo
2004 May 21
2
fwmark / MARK / --set-mark syntax never run on my system! Search step by step help.
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
2004 Jun 08
0
Routing - new table
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
#
2004 Jul 09
0
iptables MARK with msn messenger
Hello,
I''ve setup a router with linux 2.4.26 with h323 conntrack patch from
pom-ng. The network schema is:
ADSL
internal |--------|---------------------
----------| Linux |
|--------|---------------------
Frame-Relay
Default gw is frame relay and i''m using netfilter mark to send traffic
to adsl.
# ip rule ls
0:
2005 Dec 23
3
Pb routing/fwmark
Hi,
I have a computer which is used as router/firewall/VPN with four network
card. One connected on the LAN (br0, 10.0.0.0/24), the three others to
three different ISP, eth0 192.168.1.0/29, eth1 192.168.0.0/24, eth2
192.168.2.0/29.
This computer is under Linux 2.6.11 with the Julian Anastasov routes patch.
The configuration by default is to balance the load on the three interfaces.
Then, I
2003 Sep 18
0
hexadecimal fwmark and fwmark mask
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
2005 Nov 29
0
fwmark port - dual adsl line
Hi all,
Below is my network diagram: -
eth0 (adsl 1) eth1 (adsl 2)
| |
| |
| |
| |
-----------------
| |
| Gateway |
| |
-----------------
|
|
|
tun0
Below is my iptables scripting to mark certain ports:
-
2004 Aug 17
0
TCP load balance
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)
2004 Aug 18
0
outgoing TCP load balance
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)
|
|
2004 Feb 23
0
2 isp''s problem
hi,
Im tryig to use two isp links get worked:
first isp 212.122.xx.254 (gw)
second isp 10.10.xx.2 (gw)
my ip1 212.122.xx.90 (eth0)
my ip2 10.10.xx.254 (eth1)
internal network
my ip 192.168.1.254 (eth2)
turn on masquerading on both links:
$IPTABLES -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j SNAT --to 212.122.xx.90
$IPTABLES -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth1 -j SNAT --to 10.10.xx.2
mark packets on 6667
2003 Nov 06
0
fwmark and u32
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
2002 Aug 15
0
conditional routing based on tos/fwmark not working with ipsec
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