Re: [Shorewall-users] HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS mask and compiler skript

Ralf Schenk wrote: > Tom Eastep schrieb: >> Tom Eastep wrote: >> >>> Which Shorewall version are you running currently? >>> >> If you are running a 3.2 version, the attached patch to >> /usr/share/shorewall/compiler might apply cleanly (with offset). > > Thanks a lot. That solved it for me. :-) >

Re: [Shorewall-users] HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS mask and compiler skript

Tom Eastep schrieb: > Tom Eastep wrote: > >> Which Shorewall version are you running currently? >> > > If you are running a 3.2 version, the attached patch to > /usr/share/shorewall/compiler might apply cleanly (with offset). Thanks a lot. That solved it for me. :-) --

Re: [Shorewall-users] HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS mask and compiler skript

Tom Eastep wrote: > > Which Shorewall version are you running currently? > If you are running a 3.2 version, the attached patch to /usr/share/shorewall/compiler might apply cleanly (with offset). -Tom -- Tom Eastep\ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ htt

Re: [Shorewall-users] HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS mask and compiler skript

Ralf Schenk wrote: > Tom Eastep schrieb: Why shouldn't we use the high marks for routing and connection-tracking if multiple providers are involved and the low marks for traffic shaping ? >>> Ralf, >>> >>> You can, but you have to follow the rules. >>> >>> a) You set PACKET mark

Re: [Shorewall-users] HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS mask and compiler skript

Tom Eastep schrieb: >> >>> Why shouldn't we use the high marks for routing and connection-tracking >>> if multiple providers are involved and the low marks for traffic >>> shaping ? >>> >> Ralf, >> >> You can, but you have to follow the rules. >> >> a) You set PACKET marks in PREROUTING for selecti

Re: [Shorewall-users] HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS mask and compiler skript

Tom Eastep wrote: > Ralf Schenk wrote: > >> Why shouldn't we use the high marks for routing and connection-tracking >> if multiple providers are involved and the low marks for traffic >> shaping ? >> > > Ralf, > > You can, but you have to follow the rules. > > a) You set PACKET marks in PREROUT

Re: [Shorewall-users] HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS mask and compiler skript

Ralf Schenk wrote: > > Why shouldn't we use the high marks for routing and connection-tracking > if multiple providers are involved and the low marks for traffic > shaping ? > Ralf, You can, but you have to follow the rules. a) You set PACKET marks in PREROUTING for selecting which provider t

Re: [Shorewall-users] HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS mask and compiler skript

Tom Eastep schrieb: > Ralf Schenk wrote: >> Hello ! >> >> I use shorewall 3.2.4 with multiple providers and I want to use packet >> marking for traffic shaping, so I use a kernel which supports everything >> needed. >> >> I set HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS=yes in shorewall.conf. >> >> I use marks like 0x0100 a

Re: [Shorewall-users] HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS mask and compiler skript

Ralf Schenk wrote: > > For entries in tcrules, the default mask value is 0x except in these > cases: > * RESTORE rules use a default mask value of 0xff. > * SAVE rules use a default mask value of 0xff. > > So the above is a bug in my point of view... > I've corrected the document

Re: [Shorewall-users] HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS mask and compiler skript

Ralf Schenk wrote: > Hello ! > > I use shorewall 3.2.4 with multiple providers and I want to use packet > marking for traffic shaping, so I use a kernel which supports everything > needed. > > I set HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS=yes in shorewall.conf. > > I use marks like 0x0100 and 0x0200 for the different

[Shorewall-users] HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS mask and compiler skript

Hello ! I use shorewall 3.2.4 with multiple providers and I want to use packet marking for traffic shaping, so I use a kernel which supports everything needed. I set HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS=yes in shorewall.conf. I use marks like 0x0100 and 0x0200 for the different providers. However if I want to set