netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IMQ / new Dummy device post.

To: Andy Furniss <andy.furniss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: IMQ / new Dummy device post.
From: Martin Josefsson <gandalf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:14:48 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4082FA09.2040404@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <407E5905.9070108@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1082031313.1039.13.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <407EE3E5.8060200@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1082087553.1035.287.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4080356F.4020609@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1082145341.1026.125.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <40810957.6030209@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1082203795.1043.18.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4081A824.5020107@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1082298480.1041.94.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4082AE45.7030101@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1082321582.1039.319.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1082323432.13261.397.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4082FA09.2040404@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Andy Furniss wrote:

> > with connmark you mark the connection, and then you can "restore" that
> > mark to packets in either direction in the mangle table of iptables.
> >
> > connmark isn't incompatible with connbytes. It's just that both patches
> > modify the same part of the code, a struct, and the patch program can't
> > handle that. You'll have to fix some rejects by hand, that's it.
> >
>
> Thanks for that - though I hope not to have to use it now, just to
> confirm - does it work in all of the 5 mangle tables or more
> specifically could I mark every connection from local processes in
> output and restore the marks in prerouting?

It works in all of the 5 mangle chains iirc.

/Martin

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>