search for: egresses

I am successfully running ingress (IMQ) and egress (HTB) shaping on a bridge. Is there any way to combine and share the bandwidth between ingress and egress? Example: I have set up www service for egress at 128 KB and ingress at 256 KB. The shaping on them works fine separately. However, I want to create a single virtual pipe for www traffic and limit both ingress and egress combined to 256 KB.

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1673 Bug ID: 1673 Summary: bug egress hook virtio interface with VLAN Product: nftables Version: 1.0.x Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: kernel Assignee: pablo at netfilter.org

I have two interfaces, eth0 and eth1 but i can''t discern the egress traffic than ingress traffic. I need to apply htb qdisc in both directions, and I read that I need the IMQ patch to do this, because in ingress qdisc i can''t apply htb qdisc...but where is the ingress qdisc? affect the traffic that goes from eth0 to eth1 or is for the traffic that goes from eth1 to eth0?

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1672 Bug ID: 1672 Summary: bug egress hook virtio interface with VLAN Product: nftables Version: 1.0.x Hardware: All OS: other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: kernel Assignee: pablo at netfilter.org

Hi! I am learning tcng without having experiance of tc and I am trying to build something that shall schedule traffic dependent on the value in the IPv4 packets ip_ttl field. I have read the tcng reference manual and cannot find information about forwarding. Is it possible to farward packets from ingress to egress without sending them upwards in layers?

On a router, there is no need for and IMQ because there is always an egress path. For example: Internet -> eth1 -> iptables -> routing -> ... -> egress qdisc -> eth0 -> LAN LAN -> eth0 -> iptables -> routing -> .... -> egress qdisc -> eth1 -> Internet Local Process / Proxy -> routing -> iptables -> egress qdisc -> eth1/eth0 ->

Hi, I have a Debian that is connected to Internet in eth0, and to a LAN in eth1. I wanted to control traffic with HTB, dividing it depending on what kind of traffic is (Mail, Application Server and others). Would it be good to use HTB qdisc in eth0 egress to control outgoing traffic and HTB qdisc in eth1 egress to control incoming traffic? Or the only way to control incoming traffic is with eth0

Hello What I''m looking for is how to configure the Linux QoS module to do global rate limitation for two (or more) 802.1q pseudo network devices. I naturally suppose there is a possibility with IFB. I don''t want to use IMQ because it''s not integrated to my kernel v2.6.21.1 and I didn''t find IMQ patches for it nor for the iptables package I use (v1.3.7).

I''ve followed this list for quite a long time and have even posted a couple of times. I used the early versions of IMQ from Devik (I think that was his name), and it worked well. I only ever got the chance to implement it in my test environment. I now need to implement it in my production environment. My Linux core router has nine interfaces and has a 27 megabit connection to the

Hi all I have a trouble configuring the qdiscs, when I indicate the "perturb 10" option to tc, i gives me this error: tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 5:1323 handle 1323 sfq perturb 10 RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument if I don''t put the "perturb 10" option, it works. another question is about iptables, when I indicate the " --set-mark" option: iptables -t

Hi all I''m new to this list, but not exactly to iproute stuff. I''d like to solve a specific problem with bandwidth coming from different external sources towards the internal network (also the other way around, but I figure that''s not so much a problem, since that is egress traffic shaping). The network looks like this: internet ------ ISP-------[shaping/router]

tl;dr ===== This patchset adds a single bit to the skb to indicate that a packet encountered a layer 2 miss in the bridge and extends flower to match on this metadata. This is required for non-DF (Designated Forwarder) filtering in EVPN multi-homing which prevents decapsulated BUM packets from being forwarded multiple times to the same multi-homed host. Background ========== In a typical EVPN

tl;dr ===== This patchset adds a single bit to the skb to indicate that a packet encountered a layer 2 miss in the bridge and extends flower to match on this metadata. This is required for non-DF (Designated Forwarder) filtering in EVPN multi-homing which prevents decapsulated BUM packets from being forwarded multiple times to the same multi-homed host. Background ========== In a typical EVPN

Hi all, I've run into a case where the optimizer seems to be having trouble doing the "obvious" thing. Consider this code: ``` define i16 @foo(<8 x i16>* dereferenceable(16) %egress, <16 x i8> %a0) { %a1 = icmp slt <16 x i8> %a0, zeroinitializer %a2 = bitcast <16 x i1> %a1 to i16 %astore = getelementptr inbounds <8 x i16>, <8 x i16>*

Hi all, Supposedly my router is itself streaming traffic to clients. Is it possible for it to mark its packets before going through dsmark?? I have gone through the examples in iproute2/examples, i noticed that there''s always an ingress and egress of which these are 2 different dev. Is it possible for before ingress and egress be the same dev?? I tried the script below but

Hi all! In short: Anybody wrote a patch for DSMARK to make it capable of marking only a ratio (a given arg to the tc command) of the packets it gets? Say, 20%? Or, do I have to hack into the source? Alternatives, like a filter spitting packets to 2 different DSMARK based on this ratio? In long: I''m a hungarian univ student involved in a project (RMD-QoS stuff) which needs

Hi all, ive been reading lartc howto, im new about traffic shaping/police. As far as red (chapter 9 complete) i saw that first the packet passes at the ingress qdisc, then it passes to the ip stack if the packet is directed to the box or its forwarded (is my case), then it falls to the egress classifier/s. Now, i understand if i have an ipsec vpn at the outside interface, the egress

Test FDB ageing of user entry created by bridge fdb replace ADDR dev <DEV> master dynamic Use LOW_AGEING_TIME variable in forwarding.config to set a low ageing time. Beware, DSA might not accept the ageing time you want. Check the age_time_coeff value for your driver. Signed-off-by: Hans J. Schultz <netdev at kapio-technology.com> --- .../net/forwarding/bridge_locked_port.sh |

Hello Tom! After i read and analyze some docs about IFB i decide that for implement this feature in Shorewall not need more efforts (of course i may be wrong). If we have 'ifb0' device then we must activate ingress discipline on real device (f.e. eth2) and redirect 'egress' from it to 'ifb0'. tc qdisc add dev eth2 ingress tc filter add dev eth2 parent ffff: protocol ip

I''m beginning to think again about what will be different in 2.0. Here are some thoughts. a) User-defined actions will be emphasized. - A library of actions will be available with names such as: AcceptSSH AcceptDNS DropWindows (drops all SMB noise) DropBroadcasts (Silently drop all Broadcast traffic) ... The possibilities are nearly endless but should