similar to: ingress/imq shaping setup

Hello, I just found the great howto and started shaping my internet connection. The howto''s last update is a liitle in the past now so I have some questions about how things are done the best way nowadays ;-) To ensure a stable and low latency voip communication I added an HFSC qdisc to device ppp0 (1 Mbit SDSL). There are two classes (by now): One for SIP and RTP and one for the

Hello people, This the first time i post in list. I read the lartc how-to and decided that IMQ with HTB was the solution to solve my problem. The ingress shaping i want is simple, shape the traffic to my ftp-server, i just want to give 8kbps to each client because they only upload to my ftp-server, and i dont want to any class borrowing, each client only send(upload) at 8kbps, not above this

Hi Guys, Here is a question that is probably of concern to many of us. I am under pressure to provide some solution for ingress traffic shaping. What my customer demands is to divide the downstream (ingress) of an ADSL lines to two classes of traffic - important traffic and non important downloads. He has a very reasonable requirement: he wants a guarantee of at least 1000kbps at all times for

Todays quick question: Ive had problems with imq and getting my setup to work as planned. Im thinking that a better solution for shaping incoming traffic would be to put a little limit in the outer interface of the router box with ingress, and the shape traffic on the inner interface with htb. Would that be better than using imq? -- Patrick Petersen <lartc@schmakk.dk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I''ve just discovered that trying to pass traffic from multiple interfaces through the same imq is a Bad Thing(tm). A quick search of "HTB IMQ panic" showed me older posts on this list saying that it''s simply incorrect to pass such traffic through the same imq dev. I''m now back to square one on using the linux

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.

For some time now im trying to get to know what causes such configuration of QOS (kernel 2.4.25-2.4.28 + IMQ patch and ofcourse wrr): -- WRR_MAX_CLASSES=200 DEV_IN=imq0 ifconfig $DEV_IN down ifconfig $DEV_IN up tc qdisc add dev ${DEV_IN} handle 1:0 root htb default 10 tc class add dev ${DEV_IN} parent 1:0 classid 1:10 htb rate 1000kbit burst 1kbit prio 1 tc qdisc add dev ${DEV_IN} parent 1:10

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 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 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

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

I''m not an expert, but I can tell you that when traffic shaping on a router, you can just shape egress both ways and not mess with imq. My script is at http://www.stardotstar.org/?page_id=63 The basis are the following 2 lines where UPDEV is ppp0 and DOWNDEV is eth0 in your case. tc qdisc add dev ${UPDEV} root handle 1: htb default 100 r2q 1 tc qdisc add dev ${DOWNDEV} root handle 1:

Hi! I would like to thank very much for this great page with Kernel Packet Traveling Diagram and to suggest small update concerning IMQ. I think the sentence: "IMQ in input comes before nat so IMQ does not know the real ip address. Ingress comes after nat, so ingress knows the real ip address." could be more precise like that: "By default IMQ in PREROUTING comes before nat and

Attaching WRR to a hfsc ot htb class after a while i will get all packets drop and syslog full of HFSC or HTB : Non-work-conserving qdisc any ideas ? -- []''s Salatiel "O maior prazer do inteligente é bancar o idiota diante de um idiota que banca o inteligente".

Guys Considering the festive season is upon us, thanks to everyone contributing to the list and helping all the readers with your great input! I don''t want to mention names, I''ll most certainly leave someone out. With this mail I''d like to test some theory on bandwidth management, with my own successes and failures during the past year. Sharing a link between 200

>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:

Hello, I wrote a simple traffic shaping script (below) that should have allowed me to shape my internet traffic a bit (ppp0 - adsl 128kbit/64kbit; local interface eth0). The script works only partially - the speed is being limited but too much. Without running this script my download rate is about 10kBytes (with second computer also downloading at about 6kBytes). After running it my download speed

Hello there, Can someone please explain why do one neeed IMQ ? I can already shape incoming traffic on my nat router by creating qdiscs on LAN-side interface. I have done some tests, whith simple bandwidth limmiting, and it works. I''ve read just about all the stuff on www.linuximq.net ... but couldn''t make myself an ideea on why would someone need IMQ for ingress policing ...

Hi. -j IMQ is equal -j ACCEPT...? i mean it after -j IMQ packet don''t return in parent chain??? cause -j ACCEPT action accept the packet in the child chain and don''t return it to parent... example: ipt="iptables -t mangle" $ipt -N HTTP $ipt -A HTTP -j IMQ // after this packet packets go to -t nat tables? or // it return to parent chain (PREROUTING) in mangle?

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