Menu
▾
▴
iptables-p2p-devel — Developer discussions
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2004 |
Jan
|
Feb
(4) |
Mar
|
Apr
(1) |
May
(1) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(1) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
|---|
|
From: Bruno L. F. C. <br...@op...> - 2004-10-26 17:44:42
|
Hi there I can shape p2p traffic using iptables-p2p 0.3.0a on linux kernel 2.4.27 patched with connmark using the following snippet iptables -t mangle -F iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -m p2p --p2p all \ -j CONNMARK --set-mark 10 iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -m connmark --mark 10 \ -j CONNMARK --restore-mark and cbq.init v0.7.3 like DEVICE=eth1,100Mbit,10Mbit RATE=10000Kbit WEIGHT=1000Kbit PRIO=7 MARK=10 now, instead of shaping, I want to redirect this traffic to another link I tried the following (IP=new gateway for traffic and ethX is its ethernet) on my gateway ip route add default via IP dev ethX table 200 # new default route ip rule add fwmark 10 table 200 # route traffic marked to new table but the traffic isn't being redirected. if I switch the ip rule with i.e. ip rule add from one.single.ip.address/32 table 200 this one.single.ip.address IP traffic will go to the new link, as it should I supposed the iproute2 routing stuff would go after the mangle table being processed by netfilter, but it seems not being so. any help/hints/pointers would be greatelly appreciated. Cheers Bruno |
|
From: <ben...@id...> - 2004-05-25 07:59:04
|
Dear Open Source developer I am doing a research project on "Fun and Software Development" in which I kindly invite you to participate. You will find the online survey under http://fasd.ethz.ch/qsf/. The questionnaire consists of 53 questions and you will need about 15 minutes to complete it. With the FASD project (Fun and Software Development) we want to define the motivational significance of fun when software developers decide to engage in Open Source projects. What is special about our research project is that a similar survey is planned with software developers in commercial firms. This procedure allows the immediate comparison between the involved individuals and the conditions of production of these two development models. Thus we hope to obtain substantial new insights to the phenomenon of Open Source Development. With many thanks for your participation, Benno Luthiger PS: The results of the survey will be published under http://www.isu.unizh.ch/fuehrung/blprojects/FASD/. We have set up the mailing list fa...@we... for this study. Please see http://fasd.ethz.ch/qsf/mailinglist_en.html for registration to this mailing list. _______________________________________________________________________ Benno Luthiger Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich 8092 Zurich Mail: benno.luthiger(at)id.ethz.ch _______________________________________________________________________ |
|
From: <ipt...@xe...> - 2004-04-14 20:34:00
|
Hello list,
I was looking for something to tag my outgoing p2p traffic and shape
it with htb later. Downloaded iptables_p2p and compiled, loaded it
into kernel and kaboom.
Question has anyone running iptables_p2p under 2.6.x kernels ( I'm
running 2.6.5-rc3 atm )? The reason is that as soon as I modprobed the
module it segfaults on my machine ( dump below ). As soon as that
happened all iptables commands freeze. The module is listed by lsmod
but will not unload ( even forced will not work ) module busy.
I'm currently running Debian unstable (custom kernel compiled from
vanilla source, heavyloaded).
Relevant programs:
gcc (GCC) 3.3.3 (Debian 20040401)
module-init-tools version 3.0-pre10
If anyone needs more information please ask.
Thanx, Apex
===================== DUMP ==========================
iptables-p2p 0.3.0a initialized
Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000002b
printing eip:
c038ba44
*pde = 00000000
Oops: 0000 [#1]
PREEMPT
CPU: 0
EIP: 0060:[ipt_register_match+108/329] Not tainted
EFLAGS: 00010212 (2.6.5-rc3)
EIP is at ipt_register_match+0x6c/0x149
eax: 00000023 ebx: c04cbde0 ecx: c04cbe20 edx: 0000002b
esi: 0000002b edi: c04cbe28 ebp: c04cb300 esp: c5aeff68
ds: 007b es: 007b ss: 0068
Process modprobe (pid: 2444, threadinfo=c5aee000 task=c98a5160)
Stack: 00000246 c5aeffa0 c011a9c1 c5aeff9c 00000000 00000000 00000023 c04a1ab0
e08d8d00 c5aee000 c5aeffa0 e08da027 e08d8bc0 e08d859b c04a1a98 c012df3c
c5aee000 c0147156 40018000 0804e358 00000001 c5aee000 c0106a73 40018000
Call Trace:
[printk+288/368] printk+0x120/0x170
[pg0+539930663/1067511808] init+0x27/0x2b [ipt_p2p]
[sys_init_module+230/497] sys_init_module+0xe6/0x1f1
[filp_close+79/122] filp_close+0x4f/0x7a
[syscall_call+7/11] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
Code: ac ae 75 08 84 c0 75 f8 31 c0 eb 04 19 c0 0c 01 85 c0 0f 84
======================= END DUMP ==============================
|
|
From: Filipe A. <fi...@rn...> - 2004-02-14 21:47:19
|
iptables-p2p 0.3.0 has been released.
Please read the provided INSTALL file for updated installation instructions.
Major changes are:
- Project name changed from ipt_p2p to iptables-p2p
- Moved project to sourceforge.net
- Removed iptables patch, only needs headers installed
- Added the ability to specify specific protocols to match
- FastTrack match updated for new version of FastTrack
- eDonkey match updated
- Added support for OpenFT
- Added support for Shareazza/Gnutella2 in the gnutella match
- Fixes in kernel 2.6 support
|
|
From: Filipe A. <fi...@rn...> - 2004-02-12 03:11:42
|
On Thursday 12 February 2004 01:30, Josh Guilfoyle wrote: > On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 07:15:10PM +0000, Filipe Almeida wrote: > I don't feel that this project is anywhere near a 1.x release. Perhaps > 0.3.x would be more appropriate. Actually I don't really care about the version number. I just want to make it clear that the instalation process is quite diferent. But I guess we can make it a 0.3 if we are clear about it. > Would you be setting this up or myself/cirdan? I have no objections, > although I can't promise that I will frequent it often. I've got a lot on > my plate right now. I can set it up. > Really I don't think this is important at all. Simply using the > sourceforge.net project page is enough for something this self-explanitory. > Our internal documentation could use some work, though. Unfortunately the sourceforge homepage is not a good place for letting people know what the project is about. I am not thinking of anything fancy. Just a simple place to host the FAQ and a README: I'll role something simple up. > That sounds a lot like doing work to avoid doing work to me. Why not just > whip something up quickly with autoproject now instead of worrying about it > later? I don't really have the time right now to do this myself, but I'd > happily take a look at the build environment you produce to make sure > everything is in order. Perhaps, but that configure script should do much more, like finding the iptables module directory and such. I already commited a simple change to the makefile to check the kernel version. The current ipt_p2p is lacking support for the latest versions of the protocols, so we really need a new release out. For instance, it doesn't catch the latest kazaa. I am running the currentt CVS on three gateways and it seems stable. I would point out to release a 0.3.0 during the weekend. Is it fine with all of you? Please update the AUTHORS file as you see fit. Regards, Filipe Almeida |
|
From: Josh G. <ja...@go...> - 2004-02-12 01:30:07
|
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 07:15:10PM +0000, Filipe Almeida wrote: > Hi, > > I believe we can make a new release this week. > Is there anything left before we can release something like a 1.0.0? I don't feel that this project is anywhere near a 1.x release. Perhaps 0.3.x would be more appropriate. > Due to the interface change, I believe a major release bump would be > appropriate. I disagree, a major version implies a lot more than what was actually done. > I have the current cvs running on two gateways, and everything seems to be > working ok. > > Now for some things I would like to do before the release: > - Name change to iptables-p2p? Seems like a much cleaner name. Definitely. > - Add a users mailing list. I am receiving a lot of support related > questions by private email. It would make more sense to have a ml for that. Would you be setting this up or myself/cirdan? I have no objections, although I can't promise that I will frequent it often. I've got a lot on my plate right now. > - A simple homepage. That could wait until after the release though. Really I don't think this is important at all. Simply using the sourceforge.net project page is enough for something this self-explanitory. Our internal documentation could use some work, though. > - I will add a simple kernel version detection (2.6/2.4) to the all > target until we have a proper configure script. That sounds a lot like doing work to avoid doing work to me. Why not just whip something up quickly with autoproject now instead of worrying about it later? I don't really have the time right now to do this myself, but I'd happily take a look at the build environment you produce to make sure everything is in order. ------------< snip <------< snip <------< snip <------------ -- Josh Guilfoyle http://jasta.gotlinux.org/ |
|
From: Filipe A. <fi...@rn...> - 2004-02-10 02:50:35
|
Hi, I believe we can make a new release this week. Is there anything left before we can release something like a 1.0.0? Due to the interface change, I believe a major release bump would be appropriate. I have the current cvs running on two gateways, and everything seems to be working ok. Now for some things I would like to do before the release: - Name change to iptables-p2p? Seems like a much cleaner name. - Add a users mailing list. I am receiving a lot of support related questions by private email. It would make more sense to have a ml for that. - A simple homepage. That could wait until after the release though. - I will add a simple kernel version detection (2.6/2.4) to the all target until we have a proper configure script. What is your opinion? Anything missing? Regards, Filipe Almeida |
