What do Bytes and Packets Properties in Firewall match?
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2016 6:40 pm
Hello,
I can't seem to find what the "bytes" and "packets" read only properties capture in IP / Firewall under Filter NAT and Mangle.
In the manual it simply says the "Total amount of bytes matched by the rule" and "Total amount of packets matched by the rule".
Yet if I set up a flter rule to match all forward chain packets from/to a specific IP address, and I set up a simple queue as well for the same IP address, the Bytes and Packets properties in the filter rule are NOT equal to the total uploaded or downloaded bytes in the simple queue. In fact, the properties of the filter rule are orders of magnitude less than the Queue total bytes / packets. The same happens under firewall / NAT. I would expect to see the TOTAL bytes that were masqueraded, but the numbers I'm getting are way too small to reflect the total...
There's something I'm missing here ... Does the filter rule match only a subset of all packets associated with a connection?
Thanks in advance for helping me understand this.
I can't seem to find what the "bytes" and "packets" read only properties capture in IP / Firewall under Filter NAT and Mangle.
In the manual it simply says the "Total amount of bytes matched by the rule" and "Total amount of packets matched by the rule".
Yet if I set up a flter rule to match all forward chain packets from/to a specific IP address, and I set up a simple queue as well for the same IP address, the Bytes and Packets properties in the filter rule are NOT equal to the total uploaded or downloaded bytes in the simple queue. In fact, the properties of the filter rule are orders of magnitude less than the Queue total bytes / packets. The same happens under firewall / NAT. I would expect to see the TOTAL bytes that were masqueraded, but the numbers I'm getting are way too small to reflect the total...
There's something I'm missing here ... Does the filter rule match only a subset of all packets associated with a connection?
Thanks in advance for helping me understand this.