similar to: interactive traffic

>From netdev@oss.sgi.com: ----- Forwarded message from jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca> ----- X-Original-To: sebek@localhost X-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 03:25:37 +0200 (CEST) Subject: (Long) ANNOUNCE: IMQ replacement WAS(Re: [RFC/PATCH] IMQ port to 2.6 From: jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca To: "Vladimir B. Savkin" <master@sectorb.msk.ru> Cc:

Hi! Some time ago I faced a problem in limiting traffic on host with multiple uplinks. Since all the stuff worked nice seemed that there will be no problems. But then I realized that P2P users are smart enough to bypass limits as sfq doesn''t give fair sharing in this case (thousands of connections from one user versus few from the other). I tried IMQ but it''s instability in my

Hi, I''m trying to make a shaper / firewall to improve sharing of bandwidth on a ADSL (3mbit down / ½ mbit up) Since the ADSL is very asymmetric, down is unimportant, I make a ingress rate limit shaper to ensure, all shaping is at the Shaper, and not on the Router or the ISP. The Idea is then to make one HTB hierarchy and have each client (IP) filtererd and put in a child-HTB queue.

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

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:15:39 +0100 "PIOTREK H." <komarekmz@tlen.pl> wrote: > Welcome > > I have a problem with the new iproute "iproute2-2.6.37.tar.bz2 07-Jan-2011 9:18 (the problem from version 2010 to 2011). > Three problems: > a) with filters for UDP traffic > problem affects only the queuing traffic to the machine on which you work qos > In the case

Hello, there''s a problem I''ve had for several months now, and I''ve never been able to find an answer to it. I''ll try to explain as quick as possible: I have a server that controlls my home network, it provides internet to them also (NAT) and I would like to provide QoS by shaping traffic. I have a p2p server here (running mldonkey), since only that

hi list, i''m about to setup traffic shaping on a server and got some small questions about the setup. i read alot of docs/howto''s but there are still some questions i''d like to ask. setup on the box is: - external if is ppp0 (dsl) - internal if in eth0 (with ~15 nat''ed boxes) - openvpn at tun1 since all ppl on the lan feel like they have to use p2p i decided

In a recent thread on this list, Robert Kurjata provided me a patch to add hashing by iptables mark to the Linux 2.4 version of ESFQ. Thanks to that contribution, I was able to easily add support to the 2.6 port I maintain. I found out, however, that the existing hash algorithm results in a lot of colllisions when the range of hashed values is small. The purturbation spreads the collisions out a

Hi stef and all I want measure the policy perfomance for video traffic on mpls diffserv network. there are two different polices for video packet 1. Video packets that are marked that are over the limit are to be rejected at the edge router. 2. Video packets that are marked that are over the limit are to be downgraded as best effort and are sent through. Before video enter my mpls

Hi, I have typical situation, local LAN with private addresses, translated via NAT to internet. I need to shape ingress traffic (from internet to local LAN) in several HTB queues accorting to destination (private not public) IP. So I need mark packets to divide them to corresponding queue. According to http://www.docum.org/stef.coene/qos/kptd/ I thing I have only one way how to do it, because

Hi, I''ve read ADSL-Bandwidth-Management-HOWTO http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/ADSL-Bandwidth-Management-HOWTO/implementation.htm l#AEN166 and I''ve a doubt from script: [ ... ] # DNS name resolution (small packets) iptables -t mangle -A MYSHAPER-OUT -p udp -j MARK --set-mark 21 [ ... ] That is a bug ? I think that " DNS name resolution (small packets) " is better

Hi there, We''re running a small ISP and all the users are shaped to 384/512/768k both ways (whichever package they choose). The router is a linux (debian sarge), the kernel is 2.4.25 right now. All users are getting 10.1.1.* ip addresses (eth1) and eth0 connects to the isp using ethernet (via a media converter, it''s fiber from there). They''re nat''s using

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

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?

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.

Hi I have built a custom TMB Mandrake kernel (2.4.22) with IMQ and ESFQ support. I statically compiled both (mistake?) ESFQ is sorted and working fine (I have succesfully patched IPROUTE2). I have got to the stage where I can see the IMQ device as UP with ifconfig. I can use TC to add QDISCs to the IMQ device. However I just cannot sort out IPTABLES to actually redirect packets to the IMQ

Hello, I''m trying to get my shaper to work, but have only a partial success. Can someone help me with that. My setup unfortunately is not so trivial, but I think some people could have similar one... 1. There is a router connected to the internet line via interface eth0 2. There are users connected to the router via two interfaces : eth1 and wlan0 3. All users are assigned private IP

Hi I''m looking for a quick recipe for a newbie to control http traffic in my linux gw. My internet is overloaded already and vpn external clients are experiencing troubles (disconnecting in peak hours). Any suggestions ? Regards Guillermo Caracas/Venezuela On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 14:40, lartc-request@mailman.ds9a.nl wrote: > Send LARTC mailing list submissions to >

Hello! I am using since yesterday ESFQ instead of N HTB queues. It mostly works OK, but when somebody is using one single sesion (for example downloading file via FTP), it gets weird speed. For example it is 20 kilobytes pres second, then drops down to 9, then 20 again, and then slowly to 0 and stops. But when using download accelererator of some kind or bittorrent client which uses many

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