From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Furniss Subject: Re: IMQ / new Dummy device post. Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:34:53 +0100 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <4082E66D.2020707@dsl.pipex.com> References: <407E5905.9070108@dsl.pipex.com> <1082031313.1039.13.camel@jzny.localdomain> <407EE3E5.8060200@dsl.pipex.com> <1082087553.1035.287.camel@jzny.localdomain> <4080356F.4020609@dsl.pipex.com> <1082145341.1026.125.camel@jzny.localdomain> <40810957.6030209@dsl.pipex.com> <1082203795.1043.18.camel@jzny.localdomain> <4081A824.5020107@dsl.pipex.com> <1082298480.1041.94.camel@jzny.localdomain> <4082AE45.7030101@dsl.pipex.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hadi@cyberus.ca, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Andy Furniss In-Reply-To: <4082AE45.7030101@dsl.pipex.com> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Andy Furniss wrote: >> To accomodate your need for b), the idea would be as follows: >> packet gets demasquared, mark it with a fwmark > > > I guess you really mean mark then demasquerade. > >> based on some recognition >> you have for bittorent or squid and lastly policy route it to the dummy >> device based on fwmark (since routing happens last). >> I will need to modify the dummy to not drop such packets which are >> fwmarked. > > > OK I can see this as a possibility - assuming I can mark. Maybe conmark > will be OK with connbytes sometime. I don't really know how to use it, > but if it is possible to mark egress connections in output and have > connmark match their incoming packets that would be a solution. I > haven't got a clue if connmark can do this, though, just speculating. Hmm second thoughts - if I can route packets to dummy after demasquerade then I don't need to mark - I can use u32 as I do now to seperate per IP. Am I missing something here? > > Does anyone else know, and why it's not compatable with connbytes? > > Andy. > >> cheers, >> jamal >> >> >> > > > >