What exactly should I follow? Just these two will do? iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j TPROXY \ --on-ip 0.0.0.0 --on-port 8080 --tproxy-mark 1/1
iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --sport 80 -j MARK --set-mark 1/1 Thanks & Regards Saraswathi Venkataraman | Xoriant Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Winchester, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai 400076, INDIA. Tel: +91 22 30511000 | Ext: 1113 | http://www.xoriant.com -----Original Message----- From: Alan M. Carroll [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 5:22 PM To: Saraswathi Venkataraman Subject: Re: Configuring traffic server on transparent proxy mode. I would use just server_ports for all port description information. It was put in to do precisely that. For iptables, a "--set-mark 0x1/0x1 -j ACCEPT" is effectively the same as your DIVERT chain. I don't use the "-m socket" because once a stream is established normal routing will handle it. My iptables basically has two rules, one for --sport and one for --dport. Thursday, May 24, 2012, 1:13:20 AM, you wrote: > Thanks Alan. > Are there any alternative ways to implement it without redundancy so that I > can compare and see what can be re moved? How do you suggest I implement it? > Thanks & Regards > Saraswathi Venkataraman | Xoriant Solutions Pvt. Ltd. > Winchester, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai 400076, INDIA. > Tel: +91 22 30511000 | Ext: 1113 | http://www.xoriant.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan M. Carroll [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 8:55 PM > To: Saraswathi Venkataraman > Subject: Re: Configuring traffic server on transparent proxy mode. > The use of server_port and server_other_ports is deprecated. You should use > server_ports only, with "8080:tr-full". However the change was made so that > those options should still work, although they will be removed in a future > release. You should not under any circumstances use both > server_port&server_other_ports and server_ports, that can cause port > conflicts. > You are marking packets and using routing table 100. Do you define rules for > table 100? Also, it looks like your divert chain marks packets the same way > as your --dport rule. But if it works, then it's correct. > Wednesday, May 23, 2012, 8:18:24 AM, you wrote: >> Finally resolved it this way: It got configured on tproxy mode
