[LARTC] IMQ losing marks ??

[LARTC] IMQ losing marks ??

[Julián Muñoz]

I am marking incoming packets this way:

iptables -A PREROUTING -t mangle -i eth0 -j IMQ
iptables -A PREROUTING -t mangle --protocol tcp --destination 443 \
     -j MARK --set-mark 0x10020


On the IMQ device I have a htb queue.

But all the traffic is put in the *default* htb queue, and not in the good
one, it seems like the mark is lost ?


I am using a pretty similar configuration on transmite the output queue of
eth0, and it is working perfectly.

I have try :
  - change the marks, in order to not have interferences of the ones done
    by iptables in the transmit queue.
  - put -i eth0, or -i imq0 in the iptable who marks the packet.

So, the " --set-mark 0x10020" trick is not working in this case ??


-- 

      __o
    _ \<_
   (_)/(_)

Saludos de Julián
EA4ACL
-.-

Foro Wireless Madrid
http://opennetworks.rg3.net

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Re: [LARTC] IMQ losing marks ??

[Julián Muñoz]

> >
> >So, the " --set-mark 0x10020" trick is not working in this case ??
> >


Yes, it is the conclusion. With "tc filter" the packets go to the desired
queue, Devik's trick doesn't work in this case :-)




On Wed, 29 May 2002, Patrick McHardy wrote:

> Julián Muñoz wrote:
>
> >I am marking incoming packets this way:
> >
> >iptables -A PREROUTING -t mangle -i eth0 -j IMQ
> >iptables -A PREROUTING -t mangle --protocol tcp --destination 443 \
> >     -j MARK --set-mark 0x10020
> >
> >
> >On the IMQ device I have a htb queue.
> >
> >But all the traffic is put in the *default* htb queue, and not in the good
> >one, it seems like the mark is lost ?
> >
> marks are definitely not lost, i'm classifying based on netfilter marks
> (and fw classifier) and nothing
> gets lost there ...
>
> >
> >
> >I am using a pretty similar configuration on transmite the output queue of
> >eth0, and it is working perfectly.
> >
> >I have try :
> >  - change the marks, in order to not have interferences of the ones done
> >    by iptables in the transmit queue.
> >
> hmm there shouldn't be any interferences, marks for imq usually done in
> PREROUTING, marks for egress in
> OUTPUT or POSTROUTING ..
>
> >
> >  - put -i eth0, or -i imq0 in the iptable who marks the packet.
> >
> -i imq0 will never match. packets never come in through the imq device,
> they only pass the attached qdisc.
>
> >
> >So, the " --set-mark 0x10020" trick is not working in this case ??
> >
> i have not tried it myself this way, but imq is doing nothing that would
> prevent it.
> maybe devik has an answer for us (i never tried nf_mark for
> classification, is it supposed to work this way ?)
>
> bye
> patrick
>
>

-- 

      __o
    _ \<_
   (_)/(_)

Saludos de Julián
EA4ACL
-.-

Foro Wireless Madrid
http://opennetworks.rg3.net

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Re: [LARTC] IMQ losing marks ??

[Martin Devera]

> > >
> > >So, the " --set-mark 0x10020" trick is not working in this case ??
> > >
>
>
> Yes, it is the conclusion. With "tc filter" the packets go to the desired
> queue, Devik's trick doesn't work in this case :-)

I'm interested here. Do you want why didn't it work ?

devik

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Re: [LARTC] IMQ losing marks ??

[Ciprian Niculescu]

yes me :)

didn't get why???

C

Martin Devera wrote:

>>>>So, the " --set-mark 0x10020" trick is not working in this case ??
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>Yes, it is the conclusion. With "tc filter" the packets go to the desired
>>queue, Devik's trick doesn't work in this case :-)
>>
> 
> I'm interested here. Do you want why didn't it work ?
> 
> devik
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
> 



_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Re: [LARTC] IMQ losing marks ??

[Julián Muñoz]

Yes, but will we understand ?? :-)


On Wed, 29 May 2002, Martin Devera wrote:

> > > >
> > > >So, the " --set-mark 0x10020" trick is not working in this case ??
> > > >
> >
> >
> > Yes, it is the conclusion. With "tc filter" the packets go to the desired
> > queue, Devik's trick doesn't work in this case :-)
>
> I'm interested here. Do you want why didn't it work ?
>
> devik
>
> _______________________________________________
> LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
>
>

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Re: [LARTC] IMQ losing marks ??

[Julián Muñoz]

Gasp,

Comparing my ingress with my egress config, I found I forget this:
tc filter add dev imq0 protocol ip parent 1: prio 1 fw

In the imq config, that's why it didn't work I suppose :-(



On Wed, 29 May 2002, Martin Devera wrote:

> > > >
> > > >So, the " --set-mark 0x10020" trick is not working in this case ??
> > > >
> >
> >
> > Yes, it is the conclusion. With "tc filter" the packets go to the desired
> > queue, Devik's trick doesn't work in this case :-)
>
> I'm interested here. Do you want why didn't it work ?
>
> devik
>
> _______________________________________________
> LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
>
>

-- 

      __o
    _ \<_
   (_)/(_)

Saludos de Julián
EA4ACL
-.-

Foro Wireless Madrid
http://opennetworks.rg3.net

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

Re: [LARTC] IMQ losing marks ??

[Martin Devera]

Ehhh sorry , I wanted to ask: do you know ...... ?
devik

On Wed, 29 May 2002, [ISO-8859-1] Julián Muñoz wrote:

> Yes, but will we understand ?? :-)
>
>
> On Wed, 29 May 2002, Martin Devera wrote:
>
> > > > >
> > > > >So, the " --set-mark 0x10020" trick is not working in this case ??
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, it is the conclusion. With "tc filter" the packets go to the desired
> > > queue, Devik's trick doesn't work in this case :-)
> >
> > I'm interested here. Do you want why didn't it work ?
> >
> > devik
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
> > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
>
>

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/