From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 08:38:21 +0000 Subject: [LARTC] Re: iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues Message-Id: <457FBBFD.6060009@trash.net> List-Id: References: <54905.84.123.236.132.1165866276.squirrel@www.arcoscom.com> <57631.195.55.244.106.1165911878.squirrel@www.arcoscom.com> <457E6997.1050001@trash.net> <36479.195.55.244.106.1165998665.squirrel@www.arcoscom.com> In-Reply-To: <36479.195.55.244.106.1165998665.squirrel@www.arcoscom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux@arcoscom.com Cc: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org ArcosCom Linux User wrote: > Thanks for your response. > > I'm using multiple gateways for internet connection and having problems > with random disconection, and I not use ROUTE usually, but I was trying to > force only one gateway for one type of traffic (which the clients lost > conections and are having issues). > > I know I can use -j MARK or -j CONNMARK and this mark to filter, but I'm > using marks for another purposes and I can't use it for routing. Everything using marks supports bitmasks in 2.6.19. > The box is a dual xeon and the kernel has been compiled SMP enabled. > > I haven't tested ROUTE yet with this kernel (2.6.19), but with 2.6.18.x I > were having a problem with -j ROUTE in -t mangle and POSTROUTING chain. > > Perhaps ROUTE need a more in deepth revision? As I said, it needs to fill in the targetsize field and probably needs to adjust the target function signature. > Do I help more reporting the bug into netfilter-bugzilla? Its still down, but the ROUTE patch is unmaintained anyway. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:38:21 +0100 Message-ID: <457FBBFD.6060009@trash.net> References: <54905.84.123.236.132.1165866276.squirrel@www.arcoscom.com> <57631.195.55.244.106.1165911878.squirrel@www.arcoscom.com> <457E6997.1050001@trash.net> <36479.195.55.244.106.1165998665.squirrel@www.arcoscom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: linux@arcoscom.com In-Reply-To: <36479.195.55.244.106.1165998665.squirrel@www.arcoscom.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: lartc-bounces@mailman.ds9a.nl Errors-To: lartc-bounces@mailman.ds9a.nl List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org ArcosCom Linux User wrote: > Thanks for your response. > > I'm using multiple gateways for internet connection and having problems > with random disconection, and I not use ROUTE usually, but I was trying to > force only one gateway for one type of traffic (which the clients lost > conections and are having issues). > > I know I can use -j MARK or -j CONNMARK and this mark to filter, but I'm > using marks for another purposes and I can't use it for routing. Everything using marks supports bitmasks in 2.6.19. > The box is a dual xeon and the kernel has been compiled SMP enabled. > > I haven't tested ROUTE yet with this kernel (2.6.19), but with 2.6.18.x I > were having a problem with -j ROUTE in -t mangle and POSTROUTING chain. > > Perhaps ROUTE need a more in deepth revision? As I said, it needs to fill in the targetsize field and probably needs to adjust the target function signature. > Do I help more reporting the bug into netfilter-bugzilla? Its still down, but the ROUTE patch is unmaintained anyway.