From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [RFC NETFILTER 0/4]: rate estimator target/match for load-based routing Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:17:35 +0100 Message-ID: <4749AE2F.40000@trash.net> References: <4749ACC8.9060300@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Netfilter Development Mailinglist To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:64365 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753066AbXKYRSN (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Nov 2007 12:18:13 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Nov 25 2007 18:11, Patrick McHardy wrote: >> # route based on available bandwidth >> iptables -t mangle -A BALANCE -m helper --helper ftp \ >> -m connmark --mark 0x0 \ >> -m rateest --rateest-delta \ >> --rateest1 eth0 \ >> --rateest-bps1 2.5mbit \ >> --rateest-gt \ >> --rateest2 ppp0 \ >> --rateest-bps2 2mbit \ >> -j CONNMARK --set-mark 0x1 >> > Ah gotcha. I smell an implicit -m conntrack --ctstate NEW :-) Right, that would be easier to read. It a left-over from a previous attempt where I used periodic rebalancing by resetting the mark to 0x0. Still thinking about something like that for the case that a connection is routed over the slower line and the faster one gets free.