Francis Brosnan Blazquez wrote:> Hi,> > I've been implementing a load balancing solution using CONNMARK, based> on solution described by Luciano Ruete at [1]. Gracias por el post y por> apuntar en la dirección correcta Luciano!> > Once implemented, I've found that due to some reason packets aren't> properly marked (or improperly remarked) and sent out using the wrong> interface. > > <snip>> > iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -m mark --mark ! 0 -j ACCEPT > iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -o eth1 -j MARK --set-mark 0x1> iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -o eth2 -j MARK --set-mark 0x2> iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -j CONNMARK --save-markThis is wrong. POSTROUTING is exactly what is is _POST_ routing. By thetime you do your marks and stuff the kernel has _already_ assigned a packet to an interface, and you can not alter this anymore. > After a bit of testing with the second solution, it seems to behave> better, doing all marking job at the PREROUTING and OUTPUT.This is flawed too. OUTPUT suffers from the very same problem asPOSTROUTING - by the time the packets hit the NF stack the process hasalready bound itself to an interface, which you can not change anymore. Peter Disagree with Peter. The marking in postrouting
table is CONNMARK. This is for marking the connection, which has already had a route
decided for it, so that all packets of the connection passes
through this interface. This marking is done for packets with NEW state, see the check for mark==0 in the prev.
line. The restore mark in PREROUTING will restore the connmark
and route the subsequent packets. This approach will work, but you need some sort of stateful-ness
in netfilter. The second point in Brosnan Blazquez’s mail about shorewall:
They seem to be doing Policy Routing, not real load balancing. |
_______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
