Re: [LARTC] do I need to iptables mark in this scenario?

[Andy Furniss <andy.furniss@dsl.pipex.com>]

Ron McKown wrote:
> Hi Andy,
> I've followed your advice and it works brilliant.  However, I did fail
> to mention something else which is causing a problem:
> 
> Internet - eth0 - eth1 users (192.168.x.x)
> local net- eth2 (10.0.x.x)
> 
> There is another interface in this router (eth2) that should not be
> shaped at all (it goes to another local network).
> 
> My problem is, I can shape Internet traffic going to user on eth1
> (down), and user traffic going to Internet on eth0 (up).
> However, if the downspeed is being shaped on the eth1, that means that
> customers wanting something from eth2 will also be shaped.
> 
> I thought maybe I could only mark packets with a destination to eth0,
> which means packets going to eth2 would be left untouched, but that
> doesn't appear to work, or maybe I'm making a mistake.
> 
> here's my marking rule:
> iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING --src 192.168.0.84 -o eth0 -j MARK --
> set-mark 34

I would change marking to FORWARD you can use -i and -o then so for 
upload from eth1 to internet.

iptables -t mangle -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j MARK -- set-mark 34

and download

iptables -t mangle -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j MARK -- set-mark 34

> 
> and here's the cbq rules (should I be using HTB for this??)

I always use htb because it's what I am used to - I never really played 
around with CBQ so can't say it's better or worse.

When I first read LARTC it said HTB was easier - so that's what I used.

Andy.
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc