Then, the actual and updated and maintained substitute for ROUTE is using
CONNMARK and/or MARK and then add filters/rules to routes table with ip.
Am I in the truth?
Sorry for my out-of-date knoledge of these things and for the "obvious"
questions.
Thanks a lot.
El Mie, 13 de Diciembre de 2006, 9:38, Patrick McHardy escribió:
> ArcosCom Linux User wrote:
>> Thanks for your response.
>>
>> I'm using multiple gateways for internet connection and having problems
>> with random disconection, and I not use ROUTE usually, but I was trying
>> to
>> force only one gateway for one type of traffic (which the clients lost
>> conections and are having issues).
>>
>> I know I can use -j MARK or -j CONNMARK and this mark to filter, but I'm
>> using marks for another purposes and I can't use it for routing.
>
> Everything using marks supports bitmasks in 2.6.19.
>
>> The box is a dual xeon and the kernel has been compiled SMP enabled.
>>
>> I haven't tested ROUTE yet with this kernel (2.6.19), but with 2.6.18.x
>> I
>> were having a problem with -j ROUTE in -t mangle and POSTROUTING chain.
>>
>> Perhaps ROUTE need a more in deepth revision?
>
> As I said, it needs to fill in the targetsize field and probably needs
> to adjust the target function signature.
>
>> Do I help more reporting the bug into netfilter-bugzilla?
>
> Its still down, but the ROUTE patch is unmaintained anyway.
>
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
|