similar to: Shorewall & IFB

I''m experiencing a problem with masquerade downloads saturating my internet connection. I''ve implemented an IFB and now am looking into flow keys. Although I''ve read the documentation, I''m not sure I have this right. Can someone help? /etc/shorewall/params: MID_IF=eth0 MID_IF_TC=1 INET1_IF=eth1 INET1_IF_TC=2 INET1_IFB_IF=ifb0 INET1_IFB_TC=3 Note: MID_IF

Hello! My goal is to setup an ingress traffic shaping on my PPPOE DSL line with ifb. My old imq stuff used iptables marks (like ''iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p tcp --sport 22 -m length --length :500 -j MARK --set-mark 31'') to classify the traffic and since i am lazy, i tried to to reuse them with ifb. But no luck: iptables marks the packets well, but tc

Hi, my shorewall is version 4.0.15 on Debian Lenny. I have 3 following interfaces: eth0 net (4mbit/512kbit) eth1 loc (100mbit) eth2 loc (100mbit) I want to shape traffic from net on two lan interfaces like: - default is 2000mbit for each local interface - if is no traffic on eth1 is 4mbit for eth2 (and vice versa) My tcdevices eth0 4000mbit 512kbit eth1 -

I''m trying to set up a traffic control on ingress attaching a egress qdisc to the ifb device. The idea is to use a RED algorithm instead of policing the incoming traffic. After trying with tc-red and not obtaining the expected results, I decided to try with something easier, and use htb as bottleneck: ifconfig ifb0 up tc qdisc del dev $dev ingress tc qdisc del dev ifb0 root tc qdisc add

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).

Hello, It seems on RHEL/CentOS 5.2 iproute package is version 2.6.18, which apparently do not support IFB properly. The end result is that while no error is given, counters on ifb0 do not update, and capturing on the interface turns out nothing. Simply replacing tc with one from 2.6.26 solves this issue, it seems... Best regards -- Haim Gelfenbeyn Hagel Technologies Ltd.

Hi all. I''m using Jamal''s ifb virtual interface from new kernel. Redirecting incoming traffic from external interface like that: # tc [blahbla] match u32 0 0 flowid 1:0 action mirred egress redirect dev ifb0 to ifb to shape it. The problem is that I''m using MASQUERADE by netfilter also. That redirected traffic coming from internet gets to ifb _before_ DNAT is done.

hello, i have eth0 (Internet) + eth1,eth2 (local), how to i use IFB in real for shaping Download, how to i redirect traffic from eth0 to ifb0 with "mark". I testing marking with iptables but any mark not working - always use "default" mark... thanks _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl

How to use IFB as replacement of IMQ There is not much documentation about it Please explain with example -- Failure seldom stops you. What stops you is the fear of failure. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Hi all, I''m having a hell of a time getting my IFB to work. I know I''ve done this before, so I''m missing something stupid. Can anybody tell me what it might be? Configs as follows: -------- #!/bin/sh modprobe ifb numifbs=1000 modprobe act_mirred modprobe 8021q brctl addbr br0 brctl setfd br0 0 brctl stp br0 off brctl addif br0 eth1 brctl addif br0 eth2 ifconfig eth1

Hi everybody. I would like to know how incoming ipsec packets (from eth0 for example) interact with ifb device. For example: I want to redirect all incoming packets from eth0 to ifb0 for shaping. What happens to esp and the relative clear packets? By default both are seeing on the incoming device.

Hi all, Can you tell me where is the documentation for the new IFB (implemented in kernels > 2.6.16). Thanks in advance! Nikolay

Hi all, Further to my previous questions, I need lots of IFBs on this thing. I have configured IFB as a module, and issuing a modprobe ifb loads it, but only gives me 2 IFBs (ifb0 and ifb1). How can I get more? I''m probably looking at needing about 20 on this project. Regards, Leigh Leigh Sharpe Network Systems Engineer Pacific Wireless Ph +61 3 9584 8966 Mob 0408 009

I try use setup traffic shaping with Shorewall-4.0.2 and have fault. When i start Shorewall with tc-files configured i get follow messages: ... RTNETLINK answers: No such file or directory We have an error talking to the kernel ERROR: Command "tc filter add dev eth2 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 50 u32 match ip src 0.0.0.0/0 police rate 500kbit burst 10k drop flowid :1" Failed

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 08:25:56PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: >> From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb at google.com> >> >> Vhost-net has a hard limit on the number of zerocopy skbs in flight. >> When reached, transmission stalls. Stalls cause latency, as well as >>

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 08:25:56PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: >> From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb at google.com> >> >> Vhost-net has a hard limit on the number of zerocopy skbs in flight. >> When reached, transmission stalls. Stalls cause latency, as well as >>

From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb at google.com> Vhost-net has a hard limit on the number of zerocopy skbs in flight. When reached, transmission stalls. Stalls cause latency, as well as head-of-line blocking of other flows that do not use zerocopy. Instead of stalling, revert to copy-based transmission. Tested by sending two udp flows from guest to host, one with payload of

From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb at google.com> Vhost-net has a hard limit on the number of zerocopy skbs in flight. When reached, transmission stalls. Stalls cause latency, as well as head-of-line blocking of other flows that do not use zerocopy. Instead of stalling, revert to copy-based transmission. Tested by sending two udp flows from guest to host, one with payload of

On 2017?08?31? 22:30, Willem de Bruijn wrote: >> Incomplete results at this stage, but I do see this correlation between >> flows. It occurs even while not running out of zerocopy descriptors, >> which I cannot yet explain. >> >> Running two threads in a guest, each with a udp socket, each >> sending up to 100 datagrams, or until EAGAIN, every msec. >>

On 2017?08?31? 22:30, Willem de Bruijn wrote: >> Incomplete results at this stage, but I do see this correlation between >> flows. It occurs even while not running out of zerocopy descriptors, >> which I cannot yet explain. >> >> Running two threads in a guest, each with a udp socket, each >> sending up to 100 datagrams, or until EAGAIN, every msec. >>