similar to: What are the plans about Traffic Control in Linux?

hi all. i really need help. i need a working example on shaping the ingress per user using tcng without IMQon a mechine which has two interfaces, and acts like a firewall, and NAT for intrenet connection sharing: eth0 is the external facing the Internet. eth1 is the internal towards my LAN/office network. Please i dont want other than tcng code. iptables code i read on some pages seems

I''m trying to do some very simple rate-shaping on an interface. I want to limit my 100baseT interface to 7 megs both ingress and egress of the interface. I''ve been hacking my way through the documentation and some examples and I''ve come up with the following configuration for tcng that seems to do what I want. I''m curious if some of the other experts out

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?

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

Hi! I am learning tcng without having experiance of tc and I am trying to build something that shall schedule traffic dependent on the value in the IPv4 packets ip_ttl field. I have read the tcng reference manual and cannot find information about forwarding. Is it possible to farward packets from ingress to egress without sending them upwards in layers?

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.

>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 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

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 >

Hi all, Can someone please help with a tcng setup? I have played with tc and tcng in the past, and now would like to get some serious rules in place. However, I have a difficulty in setting them up. My setup is as follows: One machine working as a firewall: eth0 is the interface connected to a 512K DSL line eth1 is connected to a LAN eth2 is connected to another LAN, a bit like a DMZ eth1 and

Hi all I started playing with tcng to generate my tc rules, but I have some difficulty implementing my rules... The script below generates an error: # Device eth0 tc qdisc add dev eth0 ingress beginner.tc:2: don''t know how to build meter for this The script is below, I changed the real IP numbers for XXs and YYs, since it doesn''t really matter what they are. eth0 is the

Hi, I would like to ask whether there is support for the interface imq in the tcng language thats used for easy traffic control configuration instead of the tc command line tool. eg: dev imq0{ egress{....} } Thanx and kind regards vinay __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com

Greetings all, OK - just started playing around with traffic shaping - have imq and htb and (I think) everything else I need in the kernel and running well. My initial lab task was to protect a H.323 session over a simulated half T1 while adding bulk traffic - got that accomplished after slogging through learning tc and decided in short order that a more intuitive interface would be

Hi all. I configure my shaper with tc help, for it I use HTB, ESFQ and IMQ for ingress traffic. all users work through NAT, all traffic separate honestly between users, but I have one problem - interactive traffic (i.e. view HTML pages), when somebody download anything HTML pages opening very slowly... What can do I, to correct this problem??? P.S. all users (their http traffic) I mark with

I''ve followed this list for quite a long time and have even posted a couple of times. I used the early versions of IMQ from Devik (I think that was his name), and it worked well. I only ever got the chance to implement it in my test environment. I now need to implement it in my production environment. My Linux core router has nine interfaces and has a 27 megabit connection to the

Hello, I am using the following iptables POSTROUTING rule to NAT some RFC 1918 addresses: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.19.23 ! 192.168.0.0/255.255.0.0 -p tcp --dport 80 -j SNAT --to-source 10.32.4.2 (I am using SNAT instead of MASQUERADE for performance reasons). I have several addresses on the 192.168.0.0/16 subnet that I am SNAT''ing similarly. Problem is, ''tc

Hi all, I manage somo interface in output. I know that i can send packet to the single interface using routing tables. I use IMQ to shape ingress traffic but why i would have to use IMQ on postrouting? When IMQ, on egress, give me advantages? and what are this advantages? Thanks Bye Simone -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Clicca qui:

Hi all, Another requirement we have is that traffic entering the DS domain be classified then subsequently assigned a (different?) DSCP based upon its classification. For illustrative purposes only let''s say (for traffic entering the DS domain on dev eth0): - WWW traffic would be marked BE - traffic destined for 10.10.10.10 would be marked AF11 - VoIP traffic from 20.20.20.20 would

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

Hi, I have more ethernet cards. Egress shaping with HTB over eth0 works fine, ingress shaping with HTB over IMQ works also fine, but in both of cases I use only one class of traffic. Now I want to divide traffic to 3 classes on other interface (egress to ineternal network). I try this command sequense tc qdisc add dev eth1 root handle 1: htb default 12 tc class add dev eth1 parent 1: classid