* per socket nfmark
@ 2007-07-11 14:06
2007-07-11 14:25 ` Grant Taylor
2007-07-11 16:14 ` dean gaudet
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: @ 2007-07-11 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netfilter; +Cc: dean
Hi,
I would like to bring up the question, if there is a way to associate a nfmark with a socket. It would be very helpful as it saves the matching against iptables rules which would have to than match the packet and associate the nfmark.
The same question was already posted here:
http://lists.netfilter.org/pipermail/netfilter/2002-October/039074.html
Thanks for your responses
Tomas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: per socket nfmark
2007-07-11 14:06 per socket nfmark
@ 2007-07-11 14:25 ` Grant Taylor
2007-07-11 16:14 ` dean gaudet
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Grant Taylor @ 2007-07-11 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mail List - Netfilter
On 07/11/07 09:06, tomasnull@seznam.cz wrote:
> I would like to bring up the question, if there is a way to associate
> a nfmark with a socket. It would be very helpful as it saves the
> matching against iptables rules which would have to than match the
> packet and associate the nfmark.
The closest that I can think of is the (apparently depreciated?) owner
match. At least if you could say that there was one owner to a socket,
you could then associate that with the traffic (to? /) from said socket
/ owner. However it is my understanding that the owner PoM extension
will not apply to kernels newer than 2.6.15, or there abouts.
> The same question was already posted here:
> http://lists.netfilter.org/pipermail/netfilter/2002-October/039074.html
Hum, it does not look like there was an answer to that question. With
regards to that question, one thing that comes to mind is turning your
server in to some sort of re-director of sorts. I'm not even sure that
would work. Consider using separate IP / port pairs for the different
sites, probably something other than port 80. Then put some sort of
reverse proxy on port 80 that will redirect to the back end servers on
their individual ports. This would allow you to do a source /
destination port match on tc rules and know that you are only applying
to the traffic for that given server / service. Hopefully, this rate
limiting would also apply through the proxy. Or, if you could get some
sort of association / mark / etc through the proxy you could apply your
tc rules outside of the proxy based on the association / mark / etc that
was put on the traffic before it went through the proxy. Just a
thought. I know that this is far from a solution, but it is at least
something to think about.
Grant. . . .
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: per socket nfmark
2007-07-11 14:06 per socket nfmark
2007-07-11 14:25 ` Grant Taylor
@ 2007-07-11 16:14 ` dean gaudet
2007-07-12 13:58 ` Patrick McHardy
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: dean gaudet @ 2007-07-11 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ; +Cc: netfilter
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, wrote:
> I would like to bring up the question, if there is a way to associate a
> nfmark with a socket. It would be very helpful as it saves the matching
> against iptables rules which would have to than match the packet and
> associate the nfmark.
>
> The same question was already posted here:
> http://lists.netfilter.org/pipermail/netfilter/2002-October/039074.html
i ended up using IPTOS to do what i wanted... it can't handle nearly as
many cases, but i ended up just burning a few extra IP addresses to get
all the traffic shaping classes i needed.
i wrote a mod_iptos for apache so it could set IPTOS appropriately
depending on response size, or vhost or whatever.
http://arctic.org/~dean/mod_iptos/
i haven't ported it to apache 2.x yet.
-dean
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: per socket nfmark
2007-07-11 16:14 ` dean gaudet
@ 2007-07-12 13:58 ` Patrick McHardy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Patrick McHardy @ 2007-07-12 13:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dean gaudet; +Cc: netfilter
dean gaudet wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, wrote:
>
>
>> I would like to bring up the question, if there is a way to associate a
>>nfmark with a socket. It would be very helpful as it saves the matching
>>against iptables rules which would have to than match the packet and
>>associate the nfmark.
>>
>>The same question was already posted here:
>>http://lists.netfilter.org/pipermail/netfilter/2002-October/039074.html
>
>
> i ended up using IPTOS to do what i wanted... it can't handle nearly as
> many cases, but i ended up just burning a few extra IP addresses to get
> all the traffic shaping classes i needed.
>
> i wrote a mod_iptos for apache so it could set IPTOS appropriately
> depending on response size, or vhost or whatever.
>
> http://arctic.org/~dean/mod_iptos/
A clean solution would be to use skb->priority and SO_PRIORITY,
which allows you to specify the TC classes directly. Should be
trivial to change your module to do that.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-07-12 13:58 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-07-11 14:06 per socket nfmark
2007-07-11 14:25 ` Grant Taylor
2007-07-11 16:14 ` dean gaudet
2007-07-12 13:58 ` Patrick McHardy
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox