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

IPTABLES specific host bandwidth accounting



Hi There,

Failing to make bandwidth-pgsql to work, I decided just to log individual host' bandwidth consumption within the IPTABLES
I got Shorewall up and running with simple configuration allowing everything to come-and-go

I put my own script on /etc/shorewall/start
iptables -N localnet

iptables -A FORWARD -d 10.1.1.0/8 -j localnet
iptables -A FORWARD -s 10.1.1.0/8 -j localnet

iptables -A localnet -d 10.1.1.5
iptables -A localnet -s 10.1.1.5

iptables -A localnet -d 10.1.1.10
iptables -A localnet -s 10.1.1.10


As I am hopping with running command :

iptables -L -v -n

will gives me the list of readable traffic for host 10.1.1.5 and 10.1.1.10
but after waiting for few minutes/hours, this is what I got:

Chain localnet (2 references)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         
    0     0            0    --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            10.1.1.5            
    0     0            0    --  *      *       10.1.1.5             0.0.0.0/0           
    0     0            0    --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            10.1.1.10           
    0     0            0    --  *      *       10.1.1.10            0.0.0.0/0           

Chain FORWARD (policy DROP 2 packets, 96 bytes)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         
 3096  148K TCPMSS     tcp  --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           tcp flags:0x06/0x02 TCPMSS clamp to PMTU 
34658   14M ppp0_fwd   0    --  ppp0   *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           
34032 5258K eth1_fwd   0    --  eth1   *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           

Is there any specific value(s) I need to set on shorewall.conf to make my script work?
Or am I putting the wrong script?

Any help please?

Cheers


      Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/?p1=other&p2=au&p3=tagline


Reply to: