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
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
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Sorry for my out-of-date knoledge of these things and for the obvious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,
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
Thank you for suggestions, below are my comments:
Grant Taylor wrote:
The redirection is working, but the source port is changed by the
MASQUERADE, and this doesn't work with SIP/RTP, which contain reply
information (ip/port) inside its packets.
If Asterisk is running directly on the
Andrew McGill wrote:
On Tuesday Dec 12, 2006 around 3:44pm, François Delawarde wrote,
Hello all,
I have a linux machine with a SIP server (Asterisk) and 2 WAN
interfaces (NATed) configured to do load balancing. I experienced
problems with the SIP/RTP protocols and load balancing, because
Cross posted to Netfilter and LARTC...
Grant ArcosCom Linux User
Thanks for your replies.
Firstly, one problem was with my Token Bucket Filler on one of the interfaces,
as it was dropping lots of packets and stopping connections from working over
that interface. This lead to some strange
Having a problem with classid and prio and position. Wondering if
someone could help? Below I have pasted a part of my current rules, now
it consists of one chain and two pipes. If they both use 60Kbit which
one would get priority? Would it be the one with the better prio or the
one with the
Javier A Toledano wrote:
Routing Problem
snip
The problem is that forwarding is enabled but when I try to probe
connectivity from a host in the 10.0.0.0 net , eg 10.0.0.1 making an
echo request
to a host in 192.168.10.0 net , eg 192.168.10.49 the icmp packets
arrive to the linux box
François Delawarde wrote:
Thank you for suggestions, below are my comments:
You are welcome.
It's actually the first thing i tried, but as I need to offer service to
both WAN and LAN, and the Asterisk SIP cannot bind to multiple IPs. It
only offers to bind it to a unique IP or 0.0.0.0 (and
Hello,
can anybody interpret what the following means:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ipp2p-0.8.0]# iptables -t mangle -A MarkList0x666-ipp2p -p
tcp -m ipp2p --edk -j MarkSet0x666
iptables: Unknown error 4294967295
-
I have installed ipp2p-0.8.0 via:
make
copied ipt_ipp2p.ko to my kernel lib dir
Dnia środa, 13 grudnia 2006 18:55, Arik Raffael Funke napisał(a):
But the command given at the beginning does not work. It give in dmesg:
ip_tables: ipp2p match: invalid size 0 != 8
I had same problems when I had too new kernel with too old ipp2p. Try 0.8.2.
--
| pozdrawiam / greetings |
François Delawarde wrote:
What i meant is that people (in #asterisk on freenode) told me that
Asterisk could be bound to a unique IP, or to all IPs (binding it to
0.0.0.0). But if you know a way to bind it to only some IPs, then yeah!
I need your help :-) I guess we need to put something in
Rangi Biddle wrote:
What do you think of perhaps Francois using SER?
Well, I don't have a problem with SIP Express Router and / or / verses
Asterisk (or any other SIP Soft Switch for that matter), however, I
think the OP will still be facing the same problem.
That problem being binding a
I ive set up a working linux router with load balancing as per the lartc
guide. Everything is working properly, except for the load balancing does
not seem to be equally balance the load. The first line gets about 60% of
the incoming load, the 2nd line gets about 40%, and the 3rd line hardly gets
Charlie Meyer wrote:
I ive set up a working linux router with load balancing as per the lartc
guide. Everything is working properly, except for the load balancing
does not seem to be equally balance the load. The first line gets about
60% of the incoming load, the 2^nd line gets about 40%, and
Rangi Biddle wrote:
I was thinking more along the lines of using SER as a proxy that would proxy
the WAN connections to Asterisk. Without knowing the number of connections
Francois is expecting to receive on the WAN interface it may or may not be
the solution to his issue and but if he does
François Delawarde wrote:
I was thinking of trying that along with the netfilter SIP helper, but I
don't even understand how helpers work yet. If you have an idea of how i
could use those things, it would also be worth trying.
Just load ip_nat_sip, it should adjust the SDP information
With:
linux-2.6.18.5
iptables-1.3.7
layer7-2.7
Is working fine (normal and SMP configs), with linux-2.6.19.x not.
See:
Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 174K packets, 91M bytes)
num pkts bytes target prot opt in out source
destination
113957 1482K
Hello,
loading conntrack resolve my problem ...
layer 7 have got a dependency with conntrack but doesn't load it
automaticaly...
so module is loaded but no packets match with l7-protocols ...
reported as a bug
20 matches
Mail list logo
