search for: sofaware

Hi, I tried to cross-compile bridge-utils, and think I have found a bug in Makefile.in: --- /cygdrive/d/sources/bridge-utils-1.1/libbridge/Makefile.in 2004-06-02 20:38:20.000000000 +0300 +++ libbridge/Makefile.in 2006-12-28 11:56:56.576468700 +0200 @@ -5,7 +5,8 @@ RANLIB=@RANLIB@ CC=@CC@ -CFLAGS = -Wall -g $(KERNEL_HEADERS) +CFLAGS = -Wall @CFLAGS@ +INCLUDE=$(KERNEL_HEADERS)

Hi, I think I detected some bugs in libbridge 1.2. Probably none detected them so far because of the fallback to ioctl() whenever anything fails. On my system (user 32 bits, kernel 64 bits) the fallback doesn't work. It would be nice BTW to have a compile time option that leaves the ioctl fallback out... Here's what I've found (first patch is a compilation patch I posted last

>Alen, > > : can i add HTB rule on virtual interface? > : example: eth0:0 > >First, it''s not really a virtual interface--it''s just a convention from the old days of IP aliasing to have names like eth0:0. > The IP exists and is active on an interface, eth0 in your case. > The short answer is "no". Traffic control occurs just prior to the

I agree, but this is still better than crashing the machine... Aron -----Original Message----- From: Michael Renzmann [mailto:mrenzmann@otaku42.de] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 1:33 PM To: Aron Brand Cc: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl; roy@xxx.lt Subject: Re: [LARTC] RE: LARTC digest, Vol 1 #1558 - 9 msgs Hi. Aron Brand wrote: > does this. Another option would be to trick the kernel that the

Hi Roy, Strange. "kernel will resend then together with new ones" - this is interesting, since the firewall DOES know how to drop locally generated packets and the kernel doesn''t attempt to retry them. I am not an expert on this, but I think it might be interesting to check how the firewall does this. Another option would be to trick the kernel that the packet has been

Hi Roy, It seems that I wasn''t clear. Lets give an example. I have a machine with a single ethernet interface, with two IP addresses A and B. This is done using two virtual interfaces. A is my IP address in ISP-A. B is my IP address in ISP-B. The physical line to ISP-A is 1.5Mbps. The physical line to ISP-B is 256kbps. I want to shape the traffic so that, for example, HTTP traffic

Martin, If I understand whay you are suggesting, there is a problem in your design: It will only work if you use Hide NAT. The problem is that the ip_src == IP0 rule is wrong: The ip_src is not changed by the router and it is not equal to the IP of any of the machine interfaces. Can you think of a solution that will work in the following reasonabl scenario: Lets say I have two T1 internet

Hi Guys, Here is a question that is probably of concern to many of us. I am under pressure to provide some solution for ingress traffic shaping. What my customer demands is to divide the downstream (ingress) of an ADSL lines to two classes of traffic - important traffic and non important downloads. He has a very reasonable requirement: he wants a guarantee of at least 1000kbps at all times for