Re: Some weird issue with return traffic with redirect rule

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/17/08 14:46, Pranav Desai wrote:
Too many clients will have to change their settings. Not feasible in our case.

*nod*

This is where auto-configure scripts come in to play.

If you can't, you cant. No point in ruffling any feathers over it. If transparent proxying is working for you then go for it.

There is no info there, and the tables are not getting full. Here are the conntrack settings.

net.ipv4.ip_conntrack_max = 1048576
net.ipv4.netfilter.ip_conntrack_buckets = 1048576
net.ipv4.netfilter.ip_conntrack_count = 63908
net.ipv4.netfilter.ip_conntrack_max = 1048576

If conntrack is not getting full I wonder if some packets are accidentally not being associated and thus not being handled correctly.

Dare I say it, you may be looking at setting up TCPDump (or the likes) to record all packets. That way when you do have packets that did not get handled correctly you can go back and look at the rest of the packets that should have been associated but were not.



Grant. . . .
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Netfilter Development]     [Linux Kernel Networking Development]     [Netem]     [Berkeley Packet Filter]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Advanced Routing & Traffice Control]     [Bugtraq]

  Powered by Linux