Sorry, that should read:
is always available for ping with a mark (-m 147456, ping requires decimal)

which is 0x20000 + 0x4000 which matches:

5101:    from all fwmark 0x24000/0x3ff00 lookup ping_Comcast

Bill


On 5/8/2017 6:09 PM, Bill Shirley wrote:
>   From my shorewall.conf:
> TC_BITS=8
> MASK_BITS=8
> PROVIDER_OFFSET=24
> PROVIDER_BITS=0
> ZONE_BITS=5
> # m     Shorewall event mark
> # t     Shorewall tproxy
> # x     Shorewall exclusion
> # z     Shorewall zone bits
> # j     JUNK_MARK for dianostics
> # o     NEW_SERVER_OUTPUT - server's output chain
> # u     unsed bits
> # p     network-daemon ping mark
> # i     IPSEC VPN
> # c     connection bits
> # s     traffic shaping
> # 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> #   2    2   2   1
> #   9    4   0   6       8       0
> # mtxzzzzzjouuuupiccccccccssssssss
> # 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The connection bits are broken down into 4 bits for the interface and 4 for 
> the IP address.
>
> 0x4000/0x3ff00 is interface #4, IP address 0.
> 0x4100/0x3ff00 is interface #4, IP address 1.
>
> Shorewall params:
> CONNMASK=0x3ff00                # change this - change network-daemon
> NO_ND_CONNMASK=0x1ff00          # mask without ND ping bit
>
> IF_MASK=0x3f000                 # interface mask (any IP address)
>
> IPSEC_MARK=0x10000                      # 65536
> # { test=$IPSET_NO_GRP_MARK/$IPSEC_NO_GRP_MASK:C} means IPSEC but no group
> IPSET_NO_GRP_MARK=0x10000
> IPSEC_NO_GRP_MASK=0x18000
>
> ND_PING_MASK=0x20000                    # 131072
>
> NEW_SERVER_OUTPUT=0x400000              # 2097152
>
> JUNK_MARK=0x800000                      # 8388608
>
> INET2_MARK1=0x4000              # 16384
> INET2_IP1=173.xxx.yyy.249
> INET2_MARK2=0x4100              # 16640
> INET2_IP2=173.xxx.yyy.250
>
> I have a network daemon that pings each ISP connection and VPN connection.  
> There is a rule
> that is always available for ping with a mark (-m 16384, ping requires 
> decimal):
> 5101:    from all fwmark 0x24000/0x3ff00 lookup ping_Comcast
> and rules that get removed if an interface goes down:
> 10101:    from all fwmark 0x4000/0x3ff00 lookup Comcast_ip1
> 10102:    from all fwmark 0x4100/0x3ff00 lookup Comcast_ip2
> 32101:    from all lookup Comcast_ip1
>
> HTH,
> Bill
>
> On 5/7/2017 12:53 PM, Norman Henderson wrote:
>> Thank you Bill, that's immensely helpful. Just curious why you are using a 
>> mask for the marks? And why in particular, 0x3f000?
>> - Norm
>>
>> On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Bill Shirley 
>> <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>      I don't have a providers file but I do have two internet providers and 
>> use ipsets.  Perhaps this may help.
>>      (Note I use variables defined in Shorewall params):
>>
>>      Shorewall mangle:
>>      MARK($COMCAST_MARK1/$CONNMASK):P    - +$COMCAST1_IPSET
>>
>>      ip rule:
>>      .
>>      .
>>      10101:    from all fwmark 0x4000/0x3ff00 lookup Comcast_ip1
>>
>>      If you run a Red Hat distro, you can create a file 
>> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/rule-eth1 which will add
>>      the rule when the interface comes up:
>>           fwmark 0x4000/0x3f000 lookup Comcast_ip1 pri 10101
>>      and /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/route-eth1:
>>           default via 173.xxx.y.254 dev ccast  proto static  src 
>> 173.xxx.y.249
>>      and of course, your table name(Comcast_ip1) has to be defined in 
>> /etc/iproute2/rt_tables.
>>
>>      So in the mangle rule instead of +$COMCAST1_IPSET, you would use 
>> +unitelusers.  Perhaps you
>>      can translate this into provider marks.  Set the rule priority 
>> appropriately also.
>>
>>      One additional thought: you might mark your low priority services to 
>> use your 2nd ISP and just wait
>>      until it comes back up:
>>      Shorewall mangle:
>>      MARK($BUDGET_ISP/$CONNMASK)        $FW                - tcp   smtp
>>
>>      HTH,
>>      Bill
>>
>>
>>      On 5/5/2017 8:23 PM, Tom Eastep wrote:
>>      > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>      > Hash: SHA256
>>      >
>>      > On 05/05/2017 09:52 AM, Norman Henderson wrote:
>>      >> Are ipsets not supposed to work with route_rules, or am I missing
>>      >> something?
>>      >>
>>      > Ipsets are not supported in rtrules -- this is a Linux networking
>>      > restriction, independent of Shorewall.
>>      >
>>      > - -Tom
>>      > - --
>>      > Tom Eastep        \   Q: What do you get when you cross a mobster with
>>      > Shoreline,         \     an international standard?
>>      > Washington, USA     \ A: Someone who makes you an offer you can't
>>      > http://shorewall.net \________________________________________________
>>      > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>      > Version: GnuPG v2
>>      > Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
>>      >
>>      > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJZDReHAAoJEJbms/JCOk0QIXMP/RpLh6Dl5fjOw9AwaN0nqlvY
>>      > NUw6OOpc3gJJoH+yvNFVIs8d5jl/+kGVLJuWE4qBz2Br59T5upFn9AUtocX31H0K
>>      > N7zpc4OU9trx2arnPVVdvR8xksPi0ZtTF7hvkz0B3ce2cgKOh2SeSR3xMRxQkOCc
>>      > VMUSckhQ0niz/9txk1BxKV1rG3+5x+pbpPNdI4GN0HHICafTBihJiauJ1gxz54qj
>>      > 00k3PhdNIZWCdiwdi8Z/Y3OuSzIXuPK6paET6LtfFI9GpwkQ+7kz2NE7QSyUX8Xc
>>      > hKeKzWw7nQSsKLdhRwcZBkU0xFhBHdCqZkespBTtpzVnnlJSfJ1cyrBqTz4ExP+2
>>      > L3oBc0RNi0iSv5nPnf3ri7kJMBiJfuNVJc6yEnPx+Sr8n+BezMIudW9Q3F/zZqRI
>>      > YWDm/OyhYmiUSpMXta4VwJlF1g2V1xvt/e4pAhXdYUJKLxjlRI5k5WdzDyMKxfoP
>>      > 3NuwBPZe5M4D5vRbgcmb95YMrZO5FPWqJADuQWppi3QEfHRm7qEWWFH1vZBAjsl6
>>      > DpsSYh2GzwRXJaLZ7M4eHILWceKhNtfxJ3uqMiW0aQr8LnSFh/lsTukTSDz1IrEd
>>      > cqtrX2MdV6Iu37bjM/FnTXnlmfZu/jR2wzj6x3/9YNa5qFJW6EAEopzolWqF2I0Y
>>      > ABWSWQ+a9bJfni7AgqtV
>>      > =Vgt3
>>      > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>      >
>>      > 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>      > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>      > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>      > _______________________________________________
>>      > Shorewall-users mailing list
>>      > [email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>      > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users 
>> <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users>
>>
>>
>>      
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>      Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>      engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>      _______________________________________________
>>      Shorewall-users mailing list
>>      [email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>      https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users 
>> <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Shorewall-users mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Shorewall-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Shorewall-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users

Reply via email to