similar to: Range of ports

lartc-request@mail man.ds9a.nl To: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl Sent by: cc: lartc-bounces@mail Subject: LARTC Digest, Vol 20, Issue 13

I found the problem! It was me and it was dumb... This was the network layout: 10.10.10.0/24 1.2.3.0/27 10.10.10.n internal hosts | <----+-----+--------+ +-------+------>to the Internet | | | | Proxied | | | H.323 device Firewall Router eth1 eth0 1.2.3.11

Hello I was testing HTB using IPerf TCP traffic and the results were very good. Until I tried to add some UDP traffic the results were a little strange. this is my setup tc qdisc del dev eth1 root tc qdisc add dev eth1 handle 1:0 root htb default 2 tc class add dev eth1 parent 1:0 classid 1:1 htb rate 1mbit tc class add dev eth1 parent 1:1 classid 1:2 htb rate 500kbit ceil 1mbit tc class add

> Send LARTC mailing list submissions to > lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc > or, via email, send a message with subject or body ''help'' to > lartc-request@mailman.ds9a.nl > > You can reach the person managing the list at >

Hello all, I am testing CBQ and HTB these days and I got a lots problem which needs your help. It is a little long text :) Thank you! (All my test is based on Redhat Linux9.0) 1.Is isolated of CBQ working? I have read Mr. stef word that he never made cbq isolated work. 2. I have setup an environment to test cbq: one tcp flow which I should protect and a noisy udp flow who will eat much of the

-> Hi! -> -> I''ve a Linux Box that I want to apply a filter -> in order to limit FTP salient traffic from my -> linux box to internet. -> -> I''ve a: -> Red Hat 7.2 -> Kernel 2.4.20 (with HTB built in!) -> iptables 1.2.7a -> -> Also, I get "tc" binnary package from HTB home page. -> -> I have a script in

Hi, I have a router/firewall running Linux (like the most of you) and I wanted to do some traffic control. I''ve created an root PRIO qdisc like the example in paragraph 9.5.3.1 (http://www.lartc.org/howto/lartc.qdisc.classful.html#AEN903) with three SFQ child-classes. I wanted for interactive (ssh, telnet, ftp-control) and dns-traffic to be placed in the first queue, http should go in

Hi ; +--------+ +-----------+ +--------+ | server |---------- | linux box |---------------------| Client | +--------+ +-----------+ +--------+ MY script: tc-htb3 qdisc del dev eth1 root ipchains -F tc-htb3 qdisc add dev eth1 root handle 10: htb default 20 r2q 40 tc-htb3 class add dev eth1 parent 10: classid 10:1 htb

-------------- eth0------eth1 eth0------------ |211.241.219.xx | --- | ROUTER | --- |192.168.1.4 | --------------- --------- ------------ when i send traffic from ROUTER to 211.241.219.xx or 192.168.1.4(masquraded), the filter works fine... In ROUTER, tc filter policy is like this: tc filter add dev eth0 parent 1:0 protocol ip u32 match ip dport 80 0xffff

Hello everybody, I have a Linux router with an ethernet adapter and a ADSL device. My router has a GRE tunnel connected to a remote IP address. Using "tc" I have configured 3 different classes: 1. 290kbit rate (used for Voip Services) 2. 180kbit rate (used for GRE tunnel) 3. 80kbit rate (for generic data traffic) For each class, using "iperf", I send some data from a PC

Hi all... How do i set U32 to filter a port range, instead of a single port? In normal use: source port 80 we use: "... match ip sport 80 0xffff ..." - I know that is something about the 0xffff parameter.... I need to filter ports 1 ~ 1024 to a higher priority class... i tried with IPTABLES MARK and TC FW, but it''s not working.... (...) # iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p

Hi anyone using sangoma hardware with lartc? pls let me know Thanks Imthiyaz Original Message: ----------------- From: lartc-request@mailman.ds9a.nl Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:00:07 +0200 (CEST) To: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl Subject: LARTC Digest, Vol 28, Issue 23 Send LARTC mailing list submissions to lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

During my tests I''m starting to feel stupid :). Traffic shaping works quite on its own. System: RedHat 7.3, RedHat kernel 2.4.18-18.7.xsmp, HTB version 3.6, interfaces eth0 and eth1 are acting as bridge br0. If TCP shaping almost works, it just exceeds limits UDP is not shaped. Traffic flows PC=>eth0=>eth1=>PC. Statistics shown is for just UDP traffic (1mbit of small udp

Hi, I have implemented qos at my gateway, mostly for speeding up dns and [video,voice] chat traffic and to slow down p2p traffic. It seems every thing is working properly, as by browsing speed has been improved. But I want to test it by sending various traffic and to see through which qdisc the traffic flows, so that i can be certain that it is working the way I want it to work. The rules

Hi! I have just started with traffic shaping, and after hours of reading websites, man pages asf. I am still stumped at one problem I have. The interface eth0 is attached to the outside world, and I have an openvpn tunnel to another part of the organization using eth0 and port 5001. The idea was that all traffic going through the tunnel would have top priority and the rest share

Hi. I just went thru reading all of the howto and have a working implementation of RSVP over UDP encapsulation that i would linke to test, made in Java. For this, I would like to use a Linux Box as a RSVP enabled router. However, I have tried and tried to make RSVP work on linux and failed. So I wonder what I am doing wrong. Basically, on the linux box what I am doing is turning

Hi: I am using a machine with the 2.4.26 kernel, and trying to compare the performance of the HTB qdisc with the HFSC one. I have the following simple script that allows me to have a video stream on port 1234 while it limits a ttcp UDP stream so that the video stream is unimpaired. #!/bin/bash tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1: htb default 12 tc class add dev eth0 parent 1: classid 1:1

hi all: the following scipt is wokring perfectly with limiting ...on limimitng per ip basis.. ---- eth0=public static ip eth2= private ip ( 192.168.2.1) -- iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -s ! 192.168.0.0/32 -d 192.168.2.101/32 -j MARK --set-mark 21012 tc class add dev eth2 parent 1:1 classid 1:2101 htb rate 32kbit ceil 64kbit tc filter add dev eth2 parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 2 handle

Hi, I am still struggling with details on this setup. I have the shaping work well with some applications and not with others. Here''s what I have: #!/bin/bash tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1: htb default 20 tc class add dev eth0 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 800kbit burst 15k tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:10 htb rate 650kbit ceil 110kbps burst 15k prio

Hello, I am trying to shape p2p trafik to 256kbps on my dsl line. I wrote this set of commands: DEV=eth2 ip link set imq0 up tc qdisc add dev imq0 root handle 1:0 htb default 21 r2q 2 tc class add dev imq0 parent 1:0 classid 1:1 htb rate 530kbit tc class add dev imq0 parent 1:1 classid 1:20 htb rate 530kbit ceil 530kbit prio 0 tc class add dev imq0 parent 1:1 classid 1:21 htb rate 64kbit