Networking Forums

Networking Forums > Computer Networking > Linux Networking > Re: ip rule with fwmark not working in 2.6.31?

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

Re: ip rule with fwmark not working in 2.6.31?

 
 
Pascal Hambourg
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      12-21-2009, 01:52 PM
Hello,

Konstantinos Agouros a écrit :
>
> I have a setup where I do policy routing based on a mangle-table with
> ip rule fwmark. This worked until 2.6.30 with 2.6.31 ip rule does work
> eg with a source address
> ip rule from 1.2.3.4 lookup 1
> but not with
> ip rule from all fwmark 0x01 lookup 1
> The problem is, that the answer packets are dropped. I use CONNMARK in the
> iptables rules. Anybody has an idea if there was a change from 2.6.30 to
> 2.6.31?


Maybe you have been hit by the same as this :
<http://www.spinics.net/lists/netfilter/msg47119.html>

If reverse path filtering is enabled (sysctl
net.ipv4.conf.<interface>.rp_filter=1), try to disable it for both "all"
and the involved interfaces.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Pascal Hambourg
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      12-23-2009, 09:19 AM
Konstantinos Agouros a écrit :
>
>> <http://www.spinics.net/lists/netfilter/msg47119.html>

>
>> If reverse path filtering is enabled (sysctl
>> net.ipv4.conf.<interface>.rp_filter=1), try to disable it for both "all"
>> and the involved interfaces.

>
> I already fell back to 2.6.30 but will try in a VM if this is the issue
> but it would make perfect sense, as the behaviour described in the link
> matches perfectly what I have seen here. Was there a change in 2.6.31
> on the default setting of this parameter?


Not AFAIK. But some distribution startup scripts may modify it, e.g.
through /etc/sysctl.conf (as a remainder, note that the current value
and changes of net.ipv4.conf.default.rp_filter are applied to newly
created and existing inactive, i.e. not UP, interfaces).

As I wrote in the last message of the thread, the change was in the way
net.ipv4.conf.<interface>.rp_filter and net.ipv4.conf.all.rp_filter are
combined to produce the functional value. It was a logical AND,
requiring that both are set to enable the feature on <interface>, and
became an arithmetic MAX, requiring that either is set to enable the
feature on <interface>. As a result, if only one is set, then changing
from kernel 2.6.30 to kernel 2.6.31 changes the functional behaviour.
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is there a socket option to set the fwmark? Christophe Lohr Linux Networking 0 01-07-2009 03:58 PM
iptables: rule with RETURN target just after a rule with ACCEPT target Neroku Linux Networking 0 04-25-2007 08:13 AM
iptables: rule with RETURN target after a rule with the ACCEPT target Neroku Linux Networking 0 04-24-2007 08:43 PM
DI614+ firewall rule not working with firware 3.43 Wen Zhang Network Routers 0 01-15-2005 03:46 PM
I RULE!! Joker Broadband Hardware 2 12-06-2004 02:47 AM



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11