Hello,
I would like to mark outgoing packet (on server side) with SAME MARK as on
incoming (NATed or CONNECTed) packet.
There is option tcp_outgoing_mark with which I can mark packets.
But there is no ACL option to check incoming mark.
If there is already a way to do this then please guide.
On 15/03/2014 6:46 p.m., Amm wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to mark outgoing packet (on server side) with SAME MARK as on
> incoming (NATed or CONNECTed) packet.
>
> There is option tcp_outgoing_mark with which I can mark packets.
>
> But there is no ACL option to check incoming mark.
>
>
>
On 03/15/2014 05:11 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 15/03/2014 6:46 p.m., Amm wrote:
I would like to mark outgoing packet (on server side) with SAME MARK as on
incoming (NATed or CONNECTed) packet.
http://www.squid-cache.org/Doc/config/qos_flows/
Squid default action is to pass the netfilter
On 03/15/2014 08:03 PM, Amm wrote:
On 03/15/2014 05:11 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 15/03/2014 6:46 p.m., Amm wrote:
I would like to mark outgoing packet (on server side) with SAME MARK
as on incoming (NATed or CONNECTed) packet.
http://www.squid-cache.org/Doc/config/qos_flows/
Squid de
On Sat, 2014-03-15 at 21:13 +0530, Amm wrote:
> Ok I read further on that link itself, somewhere it says:
>
> disable-preserve-miss
> This option disables the preservation of the TOS or netfilter
> mark. By default, the existing TOS or netfilter mark value of
> the response comin
On 03/16/2014 03:02 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote:
I used (and created) the patch to get the value from the remote server.
However, I can't remember whether it does it the other way as well (at
the time I thought I'd written the documentation so clearly, but coming
back to it now it's not clear...)
Hi
So documentation is right but placement of the statement is possibly
wrong. Its not highlighted right infront. i.e qos_flows applies only
for packets from server to client(squid) NOT from client to server.
Is it possible to do reverse too? Or atleast have an acl where I can
check incoming
On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 10:26 +, Ed W wrote:
> Yes, I'm still really interested to implement this. I got as far as
> doing some investigation a few weeks back.
Thanks for looking into it. I'd like to sort it myself, but don't have
the time at the moment. In the meantime, I'll aim to submit a p