On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 08:22, Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Salatiel Filho wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 07:28, Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> I'm aware of those claims, but not of the details. If this is true, >>> people should raise those issues and help resolve them. I wouldn't >>> hold my breath waiting for IMQ to get fixed. >>> >> >> I would love to see a way to change where IFB hooks [if "hook" is the >> right term ], till now i dont think i am able to hook it after nat in >> prerouting and before nat in postrouting. Is there a way to do this ? >> What i basically do with IMQ is: >> >> >> eth0 [192.168.0.0/24] >> ppp0 <----> eth1 [192.168.1.0/24] >> eth2 [192.168.2.0/24] >> >> Using imq i can shape upload on ppp0 [postrouting] while still having >> the internal private ips from the hosts, and i can shape download in >> ppp0 [prerouting] after get the correct nat'ed addresses. >> >> Is there a way to achieve this in IFB ? in a simple way ... :) > > Currently not, the conntrack association is done at a later point. > We could add a classifier or TC action that performs the lookup > during ingress classification. > > Alternatively classifiers using conntrack information (like cls_flow) > could perform the lookup directly, but that would probably get a bit > ugly since some validation needs to be performed previously and it > would add a module dependency on conntrack. > > Using this actions would make sfq hashing by dest ip or source ip work just like it works in imq ? -- []'s Salatiel "O maior prazer do inteligente é bancar o idiota diante de um idiota que banca o inteligente". -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
