being honest, I don't understand the "handle" keyword in this command ;-) The numbers 1, 2, 3, I think they belong to the "fw" keyword. Ben wrote: > I've seen examples like this, but what I'm not clear on is if the filter > handle has to be the same as the fwmark or if the flowid has to be <class > parent>:<fwmark>. Either way seems not right, but nothing else seems to > make sense, based on the examples I've seen. > > On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Viktor Kemmet wrote: > > >># Mark Packets according to destination port number >>iptables -I OUTPUT -t mangle -p udp --destination-port 5003 -j MARK --set-mark 3 >>iptables -I OUTPUT -t mangle -p udp --destination-port 5002 -j MARK --set-mark 2 >>iptables -I OUTPUT -t mangle -p udp --destination-port 5001 -j MARK --set-mark 1 >> >>$TC class change $EGDEV classid 1:1 dsmark mask 0x3 \ >> value 0xb8 >>#becomes AF11 >>$TC class change $EGDEV classid 1:2 dsmark mask 0x3 \ >> value 0x28 >>#becomes AF21 >>$TC class change $EGDEV classid 1:3 dsmark mask 0x3 \ >> value 0x48 >> >>$TC filter add $EGDEV parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 4 handle 1 fw flowid 1:1 >>$TC filter add $EGDEV parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 4 handle 2 fw flowid 1:2 >>$TC filter add $EGDEV parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 4 handle 3 fw flowid 1:3 >> > > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ > >
