From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:17:02 +0000 Subject: [LARTC] Re: iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues Message-Id: <457FC50E.70009@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> <457FBBFD.6060009@trash.net> <44824.195.55.244.106.1166001170.squirrel@www.arcoscom.com> In-Reply-To: <44824.195.55.244.106.1166001170.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: > Then, the actual and updated and maintained substitute for ROUTE is using > CONNMARK and/or MARK and then add filters/rules to routes table with ip. > Am I in the truth? That has always been the better way. The route target is a hack, I'm don't know why it exists at all. _______________________________________________ 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 10:17:02 +0100 Message-ID: <457FC50E.70009@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> <457FBBFD.6060009@trash.net> <44824.195.55.244.106.1166001170.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: <44824.195.55.244.106.1166001170.squirrel@www.arcoscom.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org ArcosCom Linux User wrote: > Then, the actual and updated and maintained substitute for ROUTE is using > CONNMARK and/or MARK and then add filters/rules to routes table with ip. > Am I in the truth? That has always been the better way. The route target is a hack, I'm don't know why it exists at all.