Il giorno mar, 06/11/2007 alle 14.25 -0800, Tom Eastep ha scritto:
> Cristian Mammoli wrote:
>
> >
> > I used "traceproto $VARIOUS_INTERNET_HOSTS -p tcp -d 25" from the dmz
> > host and some requests went out through provider smrt1, some through
> > fweb1
>
> Please try the attached patch.
>
>
On Nov 7, 2007 8:35 AM, Tom Eastep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Prasanna Krishnamoorthy wrote:
> > If I add a mark for traffic shaping in this case, prior to the above
> > two rules, making them look like
> >
> > 0x11 192.168.1.44 0.0.0.0/0
> > 0x100 192.168.1.440.0.0.0/0
> > 0x200 0.0.0.
Prasanna Krishnamoorthy wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2007 5:37 AM, Tom Eastep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Example:
>>
>> 0x100 192.168.1.440.0.0.0/0
>> 0x200 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp 25
>>
>> A TCP packet from 192.168.1.44 with destination port 25 would end
>>
On Nov 7, 2007 5:37 AM, Tom Eastep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Example:
>
> 0x100 192.168.1.440.0.0.0/0
> 0x200 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp 25
>
> A TCP packet from 192.168.1.44 with destination port 25 would end
> up with a mark value of 0x300 whereas t
Config files
shorewall.broken.tar.gz
Description: application/compressed-tar
shorewall.ok.tar.gz
Description: application/compressed-tar
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to f
Tom Eastep wrote:
> Cristian Mammoli wrote:
>
>> I used "traceproto $VARIOUS_INTERNET_HOSTS -p tcp -d 25" from the dmz
>> host and some requests went out through provider smrt1, some through
>> fweb1
>
> Please try the attached patch.
My belief is that the problem stems from the fact that the co
Cristian Mammoli wrote:
>
> I used "traceproto $VARIOUS_INTERNET_HOSTS -p tcp -d 25" from the dmz
> host and some requests went out through provider smrt1, some through
> fweb1
Please try the attached patch.
Thanks,
-Tom
--
Tom Eastep\ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool
S
Il giorno mar, 06/11/2007 alle 13.55 -0800, Tom Eastep ha scritto:
> How exactly did you test these two configurations and what did you see
> that was different between the two? I ask because I don't see anything
> happening in one that isn't also happening in the other.
>
> -Tom
I put the "wor
Cristian Mammoli wrote:
> Ok, I started all over with a clean 3.2.9 shorewall.conf and dumped the
> two configurations. I also noticed that TC_EXPERT=Yes breaks the track
> options with the working config, but it does NOT with the other
> (HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS=Yes and shaping rules).
>
> I attached th
Ok, I started all over with a clean 3.2.9 shorewall.conf and dumped the
two configurations. I also noticed that TC_EXPERT=Yes breaks the track
options with the working config, but it does NOT with the other
(HIGH_ROUTE_MARKS=Yes and shaping rules).
I attached the two dumps, each done after a reboo
Il giorno mar, 06/11/2007 alle 11.04 -0800, Tom Eastep ha scritto:
> Thanks, Jerry.
>
> Cristian -- there is certainly something inconsistent in the numbering of
> the providers between the working and non-working configurations.
>
Hi Tom, hi did some cleaning in the config files today, now the
Thanks, Jerry.
Cristian -- there is certainly something inconsistent in the numbering of
the providers between the working and non-working configurations.
-Tom
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Shorewall-users] Shorewall 3.2.9 (Etch) 2 providers and
traffic shaping
Date: Tue, 06 N
12 matches
Mail list logo
