From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: alexb@atix.com.br Subject: Re: QoS on dynamic port allocation protocols Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:40:53 -0300 (BRT) Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <1047562853.3e708a65c21a5@www.spsul.com.br> References: <1047533324.11445.64.camel@raylinux.internal> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1047533324.11445.64.camel@raylinux.internal> Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: raymondl@knowledgefactory.co.za Cc: Netfilter Mailing List But how do I distinguish RELATED connection from ftp and H323 ? If I only whant to limit bandwidht for ftp and not for H323, how could I te= ll iptable to mark only the RELATED packets from ftp connections ? Thanks, Alex C=F3pia Raymond Leach : > On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 03:09, Antonio Paulo Salgado Forster wrote: > > Hello all, > >=20 > > I'm trying to apply QoS rules on protocols that use dynamic > port > > allocation on secondary connections such as ftp or H323 that have a > > specific iptables helper to handle them, and the problem begins when > the > > secondary connections startup. Would the connmark module mark also > the > > seconday connections if you tells it to mark the main flow? Or, is > there > > any way to to match a packet using, at the same time, the -m state > --state > > RELATED match and check if the related connection belongs to a ftp > session? > >=20 > > Any ideas are appreciated. Thanks in advance. > >=20 > > Forster >=20 > Depending on your QoS setup, you could use the -m state --state > RELATED > and the fwmark patch to mark the packets. Then your QoS filters could > be > triggered by the fwmark values. >=20 >=20