Salim S I wrote:
> Let me explain why the marking is done in POSTROUTING.
>
> want, letting the kernel decide based on the weights. (some people do
> think that we shouldn't let multipath decide routing, but thatz a
> different story).
I apologize, as I am one of these people, and subsequently as
Is there a good [single?] document explaining all of this and more?
What the kernel does in POST vs PRE with respect to iproute2 and
netfilter with CONNMARK and etc?
Thank you,
David
Salim S I wrote:
> Let me explain why the marking is done in POSTROUTING.
> [...]
___
t: Re: [LARTC] Load balancing using connmark
Salim S I wrote:
> Francis Brosnan Blazquez wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>
>>
>
>> I've been implementing a load balancing solution using CONNMARK,
based
>
>> on solution described by Luciano Ruete at [1]. Gracias por el
Peter Rabbitson wrote:
> ...
> In the case of _local_ traffic - it becomes even trickier. The problem
> is that when sockets are created they already have a source IP (the
> kernel determines that by looking at the default routing table, your
> marks do not exist yet).
This is misleading - it wil
Salim S I wrote:
> Francis Brosnan Blazquez wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>
>>
>
>> I've been implementing a load balancing solution using CONNMARK, based
>
>> on solution described by Luciano Ruete at [1]. Gracias por el post y por
>
>> apuntar en la dirección correcta Luciano!
>
>>
>
>> Once implement
hi people
Francis Brosnan Blazquez wrote:
> I've been implementing a load balancing solution using CONNMARK, based
> After giving a try during several days, I've found that another firewall
> solution, shorewall [2], implements built-in load balacing for free by
> using the following set of instr
-Original Message-
From: Salim S I [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 5:22 PM
To: 'Francis Brosnan Blazquez'
Subject: RE: [LARTC] Load balancing using connmark
"I think the main advantage of shorewall solution is that it applies
connmark to incoming p
El jue, 10-05-2007 a las 16:01 +0800, Salim S I escribió:
Hi Salim,
Thanks for your reply,
> On closer look, I am wrong about shorewall. It seems to be a different
> approach to load balancing. They connmark the incoming packets from
> WAN, rather than outgoing packets. I think it should work wel
of one,though.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Salim S I
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:15 PM
To: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl
Subject: Re: [LARTC] Load balancing using connmark
Francis Brosnan Blazquez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've bee
Francis Brosnan Blazquez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been implementing a load balancing solution using CONNMARK, based
> on solution described by Luciano Ruete at [1]. Gracias por el post y
por
> apuntar en la dirección correcta Luciano!
>
> Once implemented, I've found that due to some reason packets
Francis Brosnan Blazquez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been implementing a load balancing solution using CONNMARK, based
> on solution described by Luciano Ruete at [1]. Gracias por el post y por
> apuntar en la dirección correcta Luciano!
>
> Once implemented, I've found that due to some reason packets
Hi,
I've been implementing a load balancing solution using CONNMARK, based
on solution described by Luciano Ruete at [1]. Gracias por el post y por
apuntar en la dirección correcta Luciano!
Once implemented, I've found that due to some reason packets aren't
properly marked (or improperly remarked
12 matches
Mail list logo
