Hi Remus, I means: don't use policy routing, because you can use much simpler solution. Example: ip route add default via $DEFAULTGW dev eth1 ip route add xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/32 via $ANOTHERGW dev eth0 The second, send all your traffic to IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx via eth0. When your box acts as your intranet's gateway, you can SNAT or MASQUERADE on eth0, like iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE. For you openvpn configuration, you can either bind openvpn to eth0's ip, or let system chooose the IP, in most case the output interface. On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:54:53 +0100, "Remus" <rmocius@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Wang, > > We specialy got two Internet connections, one is only for the OpenVPN (it is > heavily used) and second for everthing else. > I will give a try to PREROUTING stuff right away. > > What do mean : But I don't think you need to use MARK to do policy routing. > It's a little overkill. > > Do you another suggestion than iptables/MARK? > > Regards > > Remus > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wang Jian" <lark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: <lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Remus" <rmocius@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <openvpn-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 12:23 PM > Subject: [Openvpn-users] Re: UDP port 1194 marking/routing problem > > > > Hi Remus, > > > > It seems that > > > > iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -p udp --dport 1194 -j MARK \ > > --set-mark 0x990 > > > > will not take effect. (didn't you typo -A as -D?) > > > > POSTROUTING is looked up after routing decision is made. Because the > > default route is dev eth1, the output device is eth1, -o eth0 will not > > match. > > > > You should use > > > > iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p udp --destination <your openvpn \ > > peer> --dport 1194 -j MARK .... > > > > But I don't think you need to use MARK to do policy routing. It's a > > little overkill. > > > > Why not simply route all traffic to your openvpn peer via device eth0? > > > > > > On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:51:16 +0100, "Remus" <rmocius@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > >> Hi folks, > >> > >> I have OpenVPN (respect for it developers) running on my FW. > >> Is has two external NICs and on internal everything is fine, except > >> I want OpenVPN (UDP port 1194) going not via default route/network > >> interface. > >> > >> I use such commands: > >> > >> iptables -t mangle -D POSTROUTING -o eth0 -p udp --dport 1194 -j > >> MARK --set-mark 0x990 > >> ip rule add fwmark 0x990 table openvpn1 > >> ip route add default via $P2 dev eth0 table openvpn1 > >> > >> eth0 is FW's not default external NIC. > >> > >> I have in use very similar iptables rules for my email server (TCP ports) > >> and etc. > >> Everything works fine. > >> What I'm doing wrong with marking/routing the UDP port? > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Remus > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > lark > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. > > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click > > _______________________________________________ > > Openvpn-users mailing list > > Openvpn-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list > LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc -- lark _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
