[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A367255.5050604@itcare.pl>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:09:57 +0200
From: Paweł Staszewski <pstaszewski@...are.pl>
To: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
CC: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>,
Linux Network Development list <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: iproute2 action/policer question
Jarek Poplawski pisze:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 09:32:08AM -0400, jamal wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 11:19 +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> This is only a sample but is not working
>>>>
>> It does seem to be working!
>> How did you reach conclusion it wasnt working?
>>
>>
>>>> Action statistics:
>>>> Sent 42351 bytes 110 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 32 requeues 0)
>>>> rate 0bit 0pps backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
>>>>
>> 32 packets hit the policer - double check your parameters please to make
>> sure they are correct.
>>
>
>
Yes. packets hits policer but second action dont drop packets.
Second is that in policer there is action to "-j MARK" mark packet but
where i can catch this mark ? in iptables mangle i make some rules to
match mark and make LOG target like this:
but iptables rules catch nothing.
Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 19M packets, 19G bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source
destination
0 0 LOG all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0
0.0.0.0/0 mark match 0x1 LOG flags 0 level 4
Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 11M packets, 17G bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source
destination
0 0 LOG all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0
0.0.0.0/0 mark match 0x1 LOG flags 0 level 4
version of tools:
iptables -V
iptables v1.4.2
tc -V
tc utility, iproute2-ss090324
> Actually, I wonder if these "dropped 0" are OK here if we expect
> dropping.
>
>
>>> According to iproute2/doc/actions/actions_general mangle targets
>>> should work; and you could also try (if it doesn't work then probably
>>> it can't be used...;-)
>>>
>> They should all be usable. If something crashes, there is a bug
>> somewhere.
>>
>>
>>> But... I'm neither able to configure/compile it with the current
>>> iproute2/iptables, nor test it with distro's builds (Debian testing).
>>> After some checking I found iproute2 needs updating, because iptables
>>> changes API (xtables.h) virtually with every new version, so I don't
>>> even blame the ipt author or distro maintainer.
>>>
>>>
>> We are hopefully getting stable there. Anything on debian lenny
>> should be working with iptables 1.4.3; i expect at most "one last
>> change" (famous last words) to break backward compat as iptables
>> moves from version 1.4.3.
>>
>
> I've tried debian squeeze (testing) with: iptables v1.4.3.2, iproute2
> -ss090324, and action ipt -j MARK doesn't work. AFAIK debian lenny
> (stable) uses 1.4.2. I've also tried debian rescue probably based on
> lenny (with iptables 1.4.2), and it seemed it didn't work yet (I'll
> re-check this). When you have something new I'd be glad for Cc.
>
> Thanks more than always Jamal,
> Jarek P.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists