From: bruce <bruce@gajshield.com>
To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org
Subject: iptables-- problem in loadbalancing(ROUTE) with bandwidth management
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 19:02:00 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200410051335.i95DZR001904@securegate.mailserver.gajshield.com> (raw)
Hi,
I am involving in firewall development. I have one problem with bandwidth
management (filtering by "fw" option) and loadbalancing(using ROUTE patch)
coming together.
Configuration is linux redhat kernal 2.4.27 and iptables v1.2.11
Testing set up is follows
192.168.2.12 (source)------->
192.168.2.182(FW on eth0)
[aliases 192.168.8.1(eth1),192.168.9.1(eth2)]
------->192.168.9.2(Router)[aliases 192.168.8.2, 202.54.1.4]
------------>202.54.1.5(destination)
Rules
==========
#nat rule for natting on external interface of firewall
/sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth2 -p tcp -s 192.168.2.0/24 --sport
1024:65535 -d 202.54.1.5 --dport 80 -j SNAT --to-source 192.168.9.1
# marking rule for packets
/sbin/iptables -A POSTROUTING -t mangle -o eth0 -p tcp -s 202.54.1.5 --sport
80 -d 192.168.2.0/24 --dport 1024:65535 -j MARK --set-mark 0x41
/sbin/iptables -A POSTROUTING -t mangle -o eth2 -p tcp -s 192.168.2.0/24
--sport 1024:65535 -d 202.54.1.5 --dport 80 -j MARK --set-mark 0x40
# loadbalancing rules
/sbin/iptables -A POSTROUTING -t mangle -p tcp -s 192.168.2.0/24 --sport
1024:65535 -d 202.54.1.5 --dport 80 -m random --average 50 -j ROUTE --oif eth2
/sbin/iptables -A POSTROUTING -t mangle -p tcp -s 192.168.2.0/24 --sport
1024:65535 -d 202.54.1.5 --dport 80 -j ROUTE --oif eth1
# filtering rules
/sbin/iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp -s 192.168.2.0/24 --sport 1024:65535 -d
202.54.1.5 --dport 80 -j ACCEPT
/sbin/iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp -s 202.54.1.5 --sport 80 -d 192.168.2.0/24
--dport 1024:65535 -j ACCEPT
# delete all existing qdisc
/sbin/tc qdisc del dev eth0 root 2>/dev/null
/sbin/tc qdisc del dev eth1 root 2>/dev/null
/sbin/tc qdisc del dev eth2 root 2>/dev/null
# create parent qdisc
/sbin/tc qdisc add dev eth1 root handle 2:0 cbq bandwidth 10mbps avpkt 1000
cell 8
/sbin/tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1:0 cbq bandwidth 10mbps avpkt 1000
cell 8
/sbin/tc qdisc add dev eth2 root handle 3:0 cbq bandwidth 10mbps avpkt 1000
cell 8
#class for eth2
/sbin/tc class add dev eth2 parent 3:0 classid 3:1 cbq bandwidth 1000kbps
rate 1000kbps allot 1514 cell 8 avpkt 1000
/sbin/tc qdisc add dev eth2 parent 3:1 handle 100: sfq
/sbin/tc filter add dev eth2 protocol ip parent 3:0 handle 0x40 fw classid 3:1
#class for eth0
/sbin/tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:0 classid 1:1 cbq bandwidth
1000kbps
rate 1000kbps allot 1514 cell 8 avpkt 1000
/sbin/tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:1 handle 101: sfq
/sbin/tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent 1:0 handle 0x41 fw classid 1:1
The firewall routing table is
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface
192.168.2.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
192.168.9.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth2
192.168.8.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1
169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth2
127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
0.0.0.0 192.168.8.2 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1
The program is to get http page from 202.54.1.5 , accessing from
192.168.2.12. I am getting http page
But the problems are
1. natting is not working(ie on 202.54.1.5, it showing that the request came
from 192.168.2.12)
2. The packets are not passing through the class(3:1) on eth2 device.
But it is passsing through eth0
#/sbin/tc -s class show dev eth2
class cbq 3: root rate 80Mbit (bounded,isolated) prio no-transmit
Sent 1137 bytes 10 pkts (dropped 0, overlimits 0)
borrowed 0 overactions 0 avgidle 77 undertime 0
class cbq 3:1 parent 3: leaf 100: rate 8000Kbit prio no-transmit
Sent 0 bytes 0 pkts (dropped 0, overlimits 0)
borrowed 0 overactions 0 avgidle 0 undertime 0
#/sbin/tc -s class show dev eth0 THIS IS OK
class cbq 1: root rate 80Mbit (bounded,isolated) prio no-transmit
Sent 13410 bytes 58 pkts (dropped 0, overlimits 0)
borrowed 6 overactions 0 avgidle 77 undertime 0
class cbq 1:1 parent 1: leaf 101: rate 8000Kbit prio no-transmit
Sent 7728 bytes 17 pkts (dropped 0, overlimits 0)
borrowed 6 overactions 0 avgidle 77 undertime 0
Note:
=========
SNAT with bandwith management is working properly. Also loadbalancing with
SNAT is working properly.
Doubts
========
I have doubts that any mismatching of target rules -j MARK and -j ROUTE
in mangle table?
Is there any importance of target rules order. ie. first MARK then ROUTE
if anybody have a solution please help me
THANKS IN ADVANCE
Bruce
next reply other threads:[~2004-10-05 13:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-05 13:32 bruce [this message]
2004-10-05 17:21 ` iptables-- problem in loadbalancing(ROUTE) with bandwidth management David Rye of Roadtech
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200410051335.i95DZR001904@securegate.mailserver.gajshield.com \
--to=bruce@gajshield.com \
--cc=netfilter@lists.netfilter.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.