On Thursday 2011-07-21 11:14, Patrick McHardy wrote: >On 21.07.2011 10:43, Ed W wrote: >> On 21/07/2011 07:16, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>> It's expected behaviour since ICMP packets related to an existing >>> connection don't refresh the connection and are not accounted. >>> I don't have an opinion on whether they should be accounted, I >>> guess you could argue both ways. >> >> Thanks for the feedback. >> >> I guess I was hoping that conntrack could be used for accurate bandwidth >> accounting, however, it seems to ignore this type of packet, so it's >> count is going to deviate from a simple interface byte counter? > >Yes, but it's going to do that anyways since there are also packets >which can't be tracked, invalid packets, etc. Also conntrack doesn't >account for link layer headers and only for IPv4/v6 packets. While toying around, I found that if an skb is classified as RELATED, skb->nfct->master always points to skb->nfct itself. Is that a bug or something? Should it not point to the origin CT? -- 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
