From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Leblond Subject: Re: CONNMARK and state RELATED Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 08:04:43 +0100 Sender: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <1078297483.1447.3.camel@localhost> References: <7C9884991ADAE0479C14F10C858BCDF56791B5@alderaan.smgtec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Netfilter developmnet mailing list Return-path: To: Daniel Chemko In-Reply-To: <7C9884991ADAE0479C14F10C858BCDF56791B5@alderaan.smgtec.com> Errors-To: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org Le mer 03/03/2004 =C3=A0 01:53, Daniel Chemko a =C3=A9crit : > Does anyone know if these two technologies are compatible? I think so, I've deployed this to do the same as you and it works fine (even with FTP) > My rules are as follows: > ${IPTABLES} -t mangle -A PREROUTING --source ${_fip} --destination > ${_sip} -p ${_proto} -j CONNMARK --set-mark ${_fwmark} -m mark --mark 0 >=20 Have you try as show at : http://hom.regit.org/connmark.html (You need to restore the mark.) BR, -- Eric Leblond