ArcosCom Linux User wrote: > 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? That has always been the better way. The route target is a hack, I'm don't know why it exists at all. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [LARTC] Re: iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues, ArcosCom Linux User |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [LARTC] SIP, NAT, and load balancing problems, François Delawarde |
| Previous by Thread: | [LARTC] Re: iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues, ArcosCom Linux User |
| Next by Thread: | [LARTC] Link aggregation, Simone84bo |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |