similar to: Load Balancing with Instant Messenger traffic?

What''s going on here? I''m spewing UDP traffic at this thing, and it is exceeding the ceil. Anyone know how to fix this? class htb 1:613 parent 1:5 leaf 613: prio 6 quantum 2560 rate 20480bit ceil 103360bit burst 15Kb/8 mpu 0b overhead 0b cburst 1728b/8 mpu 0b overhead 0b level 0 Sent 16591370 bytes 4159 pkt (dropped 39449, overlimits 0 requeues 0) rate 412384bit 6pps backlog 0b

A bit more detail. I have the following htb classes set up... class htb 1:356 parent 1:4 leaf 356: prio 4 quantum 1600 rate 12800bit ceil 51680bit burst 15Kb/8 mpu 0b overhead 0b cburst 1663b/8 mpu 0b overhead 0b level 0 class htb 1:357 parent 1:4 leaf 357: prio 4 quantum 1600 rate 12800bit ceil 51680bit burst 15Kb/8 mpu 0b overhead 0b cburst 1663b/8 mpu 0b overhead 0b level 0 class htb 1:2 root

Hi Guys, I want to create multiple virtual interfaces on a system running linux 2.6. The main requirment being, to assign unique MAC address fo each of the virtual interfaces. I need to know, if this is possible and will really appriciate if someone can provide me pointer in this direction. Thanks a lot. R. Singh _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list

Hi, Does anyone tried to get ipip or gre tunnel behind NAT environments. ? i''m trying to make both side tunneling with ipip or gre with private address just like belows.. A -------------------FIRWWAL -------------------INET ------------------- B PRIVATE PUBLIC PUBLIC (10.100.0.1) (211.xxx.xxx.xxx) (

I''m using a fairly large number of classes, andf borrowing is not working as expected... I''ve called this setting it up on an IMQ device with speed 1200/256 on a 1536/384 line. I''m then throwing a UDP data transfer at it that gets tossed in one of the class under parent 1:6. The classification is working fine, but when I try to ping out, ping times are in the 900ms

Hi, I have the my gateway with load balancing traffic going out over two providers. Web browsing is fine...working great. But, my clients (office staff) complains that MSN keeps disconnecting (in 5 mins). Why? Please help me... Regards, ro0ot

Hello lartc! I have strange problem setting load balancing over 4 interfaces. Something won''t accept more than 3 interfaces, While setting: ip route add default scope global \ nexthop via 0.0.0.0 dev pvc0 weight 1 \ nexthop via 0.0.0.0 dev pvc1 weight 1 \ nexthop via 0.0.0.0 dev pvc2 weight 1 It''s ok: ip r l default nexthop dev pvc0

What''s going on here? I''m spewing UDP traffic at this thing, and it is exceeding the ceil, (i watched it for a few minutes, it didn''t slow down). Anyone know how to fix this? class htb 1:613 parent 1:5 leaf 613: prio 6 quantum 2560 rate 20480bit ceil 103360bit burst 15Kb/8 mpu 0b overhead 0b cburst 1728b/8 mpu 0b overhead 0b level 0 Sent 16591370 bytes 4159 pkt (dropped

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1513 Summary: CIDR address/masklen matching support for permitopen= Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 5.1p1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P2 Component: sshd AssignedTo: unassigned-bugs at mindrot.org

Hi, I am connected to two DSL providers (DSL 1 - 1Mbps downlink/384kbps uplink and DSL 2 - 2Mbps downlink/512kpbs uplink) I would like to only allow ftp, pop3 and http via the DSL 1 and only smtp, ipsec and pptp via DSL 2. How can I do so? Can I use iproute to route these protocols? Below is my ip routing: - # DSL 1 ip route add 2.2.2.208/30 dev eth0 src 2.2.2.210 table 1 ip route add

how to use iproute/iptables to balance by packet OUTBOUND traffic between 2 PPP (pptp cable modem and pppoe adsl modem) links to the same ISP . also by using the fact that the ISP dosen''t filter source IP address - meaning i can use either PPP''s link assigned IP address as the source IP in the ip header.., it works for both devices.., what i want to achive is : when uploading a

Hi, when sending IMs from endpoint to endpoint with the MessageSend() application, I can check the MESSAGE_SEND_STATUS and send another message to the sender of the message to notify them that their message was not sent when the status indicates it. This works fine with chan_sip. With chan_pjsip, this works differently in that MESSAGE_SEND_STATUS is "SUCCESS" after sending the

Hello, I have set up a multipath gateway. System is a linux 2.4.29 kernel, iproute 20010824, iptables 1.2.11. here is the setup: firewall:/# ip rule 0: from all lookup local 100: from all lookup main 152: from all fwmark 10 lookup wan1 153: from all fwmark 20 lookup wan2 201: from 213.223.96.121 lookup wan1 202: from 82.236.230.217 lookup wan2 1000: from

Hi List, The hardware list page on the Wiki: http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/HardwareList says: "I'd like to see this page as an entry point for hardware that does not work with CentOS out of the box or only with some effort. I do not see a need for a list which states all working hardware." I'd like to ask if we can make a small exception to that rule for

Robert Benjamin <benjie1 at cox.net> wrote: >Sent: Oct 13, 2010 4:26 AM >To: wine-users at winehq.org >Subject: Re: [Wine] Fwd: Re: Any progress on bug 16147? > >Just wondering why I haven't had a reply about the webcam problem >with iSpQ and icuii. There are a few previous posts about testing the >cam from Gert but nothing lately. Maybe because no one is working

I have looked through the archives, and I can''t find the answer(not that it isn''t there) I have two connections to the net. I want load balancing and redundancy. cable adsl (24.141.) (64.229) | | | | | | | | ------------ | linux | |redhat 7.0| I have no idea were to even start. I would like equal access to both connections.

After varying degrees of success with p2p detection modules, I would like to write the following rules using iptables to reliably identify p2p traffic: 1. If a host on the network has 5 or more simutaneous tcp connections to ports above 1024, mark all connections to ports 1024 and above as 60. 2. If a host has received (or sent) UDP packets from 5 different hosts'' ports above 1024 in a

Hello all! As far as I know that the traffic that will pass thru the router is balanced so that all connections have the same privilegies. Is it possible to configure the linux based router so that all computers will have the same privilegies? I mean that if in default case full traffic is splitted by connections, so I need to split it by users to prevent one user occupy all traffic by starting

The LARTC howto correctly describes load balancing and split access for traffic from a machine with multiple ISP connections (http://www.lartc.org/lartc.html#LARTC.RPDB.MULTIPLE-LINKS) -- *provided* the traffic originates from the machine itself (i.e. traffic regularly handled by the INPUT and OUTPUT chains of iptables). When forwarding traffic from an attached local network, the following

I have a working router (thanks to Julian''s patches and the threads on this site) load balancing over Dual ISP''s. Links for the curious (see router setup below as well) - Necessary Patches - http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/ How to Patch (I use Debian Sarge and downloaded the latest source from kernel.org) - http://www.desktop-linux.net/debkernel.htm Necessary Reading -