similar to: IFB vs IMQ

On 2/19/07, Salatiel Filho <salatiel.filho@gmail.com> wrote: > Well , thanks to imq all my client machines are now shaped and > everything is great ... > But now i have a doubt , is there a way to shape the traffic that goes > to the route [doing a wget from the router for example ]? > > > I have a PREROUTING IMQ0 and a POSTROUTING IMQ1 , everything is > working like

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, I''m looking for info about IFB devices and how I can use it to incomming traffic shapping. Has IFB any web about it? Do any body known where I can find more info about it? I found this: http://linux-net.osdl.org/index.php/IFB But I can''t stand fine how to use it to allow many ifb''s devices or how to use it with "tc actions". Any help? Thanks --

I want to use snort inline for ips and imq for bandwidth shaping When i have inserted imq module ip_queue module insertion giving error Is it possible to use both at the same time -- 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

Hello, Some time ago I''ve read somewhere that local traffic in IMQ could hung up the whole system but it was corrected long time ago. So I was very surprised yesterday when it occurred not true. While testing IMQ I''ve observed for some time that - if you tag some local traffic with iptables both in pre- and postrouting - kernel is hunging up. It is happening quite quick with

How can i redirect all traffic that not come from port 80 to a flow ? i was thing about some like tc filter add dev imq1 parent 1: protocol ip prio 7 u32 match ip sport !80 ...... But this not work. Another doubt, if i have two rules that intersects , for example , one filter with u32 match ip src 10.10.10.10 flowid 1:10 and other with u32 match sport 80 0xffff flowid 1:11 , which one will

Hi, I''m trying to activate IFB device support in a 2.6.17 kernel from Debian Sid. I read that IFB device is the replacement for IMQ device, but I haven''t found any useful documentantion on how to activate this feature and the kernel documentation lacks of this information. I remember that IMQ could be activated in the ''Network devices'' menu in 2.6.8 kernels,

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

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.

Hello I''m trying to switch from IMQ to IFB but I have a problem with traffic marked by ipp2p module. Looks like when traffic is redirected from ethX to ifbX it looses information about MARK. Here''s what I do to get ingress traffic to go to ifb interface: $TC qdisc add dev eth1.42 ingress $TC filter add dev eth1.42 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 10 u32 \ match u32 0 0

Hello to everybody, We want integrate in a router/firewall (Debian Based, 2.6 Kernel), an HTB shaper. The goal is to divide the traffic for classes of workstations, at example in three classes, let say A, B and C. Example: A 70 Mb/s B 20 Mb/s C 10 Mb/s If B don''t make traffic, 7/8 of 20Mb/s must be assigned to A and all the rest at B We have used CBQ and HTB, with poor succes. Anybody

Hi there, -- Christian Lyra PoP-PR/RNP _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Hello, Sorry for the many Ccs, but I hope to reach all parties involved. I want to do traffic shaping with NAT and I wanted to do it with IFB instead of IMQ [1]. I tried a lot of things but now I am stuck (and maybe confused). The setup: eth0 eth1 WAN/(Internet) <-> Linux Router <-> LAN Linux router: - does NAT for the LANs - runs local processes

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 Tom, Sorry, please but i again return to IFB question. If i correct understand in current situation IFB haven't profit from ESFQ in common cases (i mean internal networks masquarading) so as we wait from ESFQ allocates bandwidth fairly per source IP(internal) but IFB don't know internal IPs. If i correct, what do you think what can help IFB to solve its main disadvantage

In 2.4 kernels, there was a [bp]fifo that could be implemented with ''tc add'', but in 2.6 kernels, I find no way to create either of these fifos. I am able to increase txqueuelen. What I desire is a larger number of backlogged packetes before drops occur. How can the output buffer size be increased for HTB? -- gypsy

Hello everyone, We are working on HTB with TC and would like some clarifications from your part. Our example is as follows. We have one HTB root class and two HTB classes attached to it, as in this figure : 1: HTB | | |

I''m trying to set up a shaper that can shape the inbound traffic to around 40 subnets, that hang on 3 different interfaces of the router. As Linux can''t do ingress shaping I''m left with having to set up 3 seperate shapers, one for each internal interface. This is not completely optimal as I''ll have to limit each of the 3 interfaces to 1/3 of the total

Hey folks, I stumbled across the Mastershaper project ( http://www.mastershaper.org/ ) but I have a little problem: I wanted to shape the traffic coming from the router itself aswell as coming from the LAN behind the router, for that task I need IMQ, but with IMQ iptables-(layer7)-matching is not possible. Now I''ve talked with the programmer and he said the following: >The problem is