From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ramin Dousti Subject: Re: Iproute2 and fwmark usage Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:22:41 -0500 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <20040109212241.GF24304@cannon.eng.us.uu.net> References: <001401c3d63b$e9ebdff0$1684188d@Kiste> <20040109164718.GB24304@cannon.eng.us.uu.net> <001d01c3d6cc$191fc210$1684188d@Kiste> <20040109173530.GC24304@cannon.eng.us.uu.net> <001601c3d6d0$b8198e10$1684188d@Kiste> <20040109194247.GD24304@cannon.eng.us.uu.net> <001101c3d6e3$cdf03e60$1684188d@Kiste> <20040109204745.GE24304@cannon.eng.us.uu.net> <004101c3d6ec$7801b6b0$1684188d@Kiste> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <004101c3d6ec$7801b6b0$1684188d@Kiste> Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Thhoep Cc: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:09:14PM +0100, Thhoep wrote: > is there a logical reason (besides some bug in the code) why it should drop > something? I can't think of any logical reason. And to be honest, I don't think it is due to a bug. > i thought (but aint sure) that the "demasquerading" happens right > in the prerouting, before the routing process, so that no routing rule in > the world could disturb it? You're right. > i just did it. killed all other ppp connections, there was just eth4 (the > local lan interface), ppp0 and a bunch of non-ip ethernet interfaces. but > the result was the same, and no mis-guided packages in either direction. > > i've really no clue what to do now. Send the exact rules (netfilter/ip) from scratch for this minimal setup. I'll try to have an exact setup here... Ramin > > i will try to reproduce the configuration on another server here.