Then, the actual and updated and maintained substitute for ROUTE is using CONNMARK and/or MARK and then add filters/rules to routes table with ip. Am I in the truth? Sorry for my out-of-date knoledge of these things and for the "obvious" questions. Thanks a lot. El Mie, 13 de Diciembre de 2006, 9:38, Patrick McHardy escribió: > ArcosCom Linux User wrote: >> Thanks for your response. >> >> I'm using multiple gateways for internet connection and having problems >> with random disconection, and I not use ROUTE usually, but I was trying >> to >> force only one gateway for one type of traffic (which the clients lost >> conections and are having issues). >> >> I know I can use -j MARK or -j CONNMARK and this mark to filter, but I'm >> using marks for another purposes and I can't use it for routing. > > Everything using marks supports bitmasks in 2.6.19. > >> The box is a dual xeon and the kernel has been compiled SMP enabled. >> >> I haven't tested ROUTE yet with this kernel (2.6.19), but with 2.6.18.x >> I >> were having a problem with -j ROUTE in -t mangle and POSTROUTING chain. >> >> Perhaps ROUTE need a more in deepth revision? > > As I said, it needs to fill in the targetsize field and probably needs > to adjust the target function signature. > >> Do I help more reporting the bug into netfilter-bugzilla? > > Its still down, but the ROUTE patch is unmaintained anyway. > _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
