similar to: traffic shaping gre tunnels

Hi, I''m a bit confused with the priority of different classes with HTB. How it will be? Will the class with lowest no: have maximum priority? Any help is most appreciated, Thanks in advance, Sanjeev -- ______________________________________________ Check out the latest SMS services @ http://www.linuxmail.org This allows you to send and receive SMS through your mailbox. Powered by

Hi! I have read all informations i could find, but some things are still not clear. My setup is: ---INTERNET1(eth0)-\ /- Local net1 (eth2) GW ---INTERNET2(eth1)-/ \- Local net2 (eth3) I have NAT and a working setup using HTB,SFQ, classifying with the iptables -j CLASSIFY way. I shape only the traffic coming from the internet heading to the intranet. I would like

helo again. I think this question i am asking is worth: we know that pppoe-server creates a pppX device on each connection done to it. So, when i have to shape, i have to shape each pppX connection device on itself alone. What i know is that the borrowing method on one device by itself, e.g. ppp0, alone using HTB or the like. this means that i have to create for another device, e.g. ppp1,

Hi! I am making some tests here, and i wanna miror all the traffic going to a ip from one interface to another ip. example: all packets going to 64.223.167.100 should be transmitted by ppp0 to internet and by eth2 to the adress 192.168.1.100. Someone know how can i do it using iptables or ip route/ip rule? Tks in advance! Fernando Favero _______________________________________________ LARTC

Hi! I read http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc/2002q4/006244.html and I did that. Can anyone tell me if there is something else to do for shapeing over tunnels to work? I noticed that gre interfaces don''t have a queue attached. I''m running linux-2.6.15 and iptables-1.3.4 with no patches. Thank you in advance, Sorin.

Hi! I want to add to my previous post that: my setup looks like this internet --> linux router with NAT and tc ==> gre tunnel ==> forwarding router --> LAN At my NATting router I can "see" the forwarded LAN (192.168.2.0/24). Now let''s say that there is a LAN workstation with the IP 192.168.2.18 and I filter the traffic with tc for it. If the fowarding router has

I have: tc qdisc add dev imq0 root handle 1: htb default 30 tc class add dev imq0 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 512kbit ceil 512kbit tc class add dev imq0 parent 1:1 classid 1:30 htb rate 64kbit ceil 512kbit then: iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -i ppp0 -s 192.168.2.2 -j IMQ --todev 0 tc class add dev imq0 parent 1:1 classid 1:22 htb rate 64kbit ceil 128kbit tc filter add dev imq0 protocol

Folks, I am a little bit confuse in how to put these packets into correct mangle table for traffic shaping. This is what i ve planned to do: - - - - :eth0 [ LINUX-BOX ] eth1: - - - - Let say: eth0: 220.100.1.1 eth1: 192.168.1.1 eth1:1 192.168.1.2 192.168.1.0/24 get natted into 220.100.1.1 before reaching the internet. I put every packets coming from internet (eth0) this way: # iptables -t

hi all. i am currently now serving PPPoE in my area. i had a script generated from tcng that worked perfectly before i started serving PPPoE. the issue is not in the script it self BUT in that "tc" code is not shaping on the ethernet anymore BUT INSTEAD on the pppX devices. I tested it and talking jargon, what should i do? The issue is that for each PPPoE login, PPPoE-server

Hi, I have two systems each with 2 two gre tunnels over ipsec. The tunnels are setup to loadbalance using ''ip route''. Using ping from one server to the other I get equal results via the two gre tunnels, but when I try a large ftp transfer the utilization of one tunnel is 90% and the other 10%. The two interfaces are both 100/full. What would be the reason for this, or would

Hi , I am trying to set up a GRE tunnel between two linux routers. The routers have a 400 MHz Processor. Linux .2 65.0.0.2 Linux LAN1 -------- Router -------- INTERNET ---- Router ---- LAN2 10.10.10.0 .1 208.1.0.1 (Simulated) .1 .1 192.168.2.0/24 /24 Scripts to Create the tunnel ip tunnel add tun0 mode gre remote 65.0.0.1 local

Hey all, Anybody been successful running DHCPD on a GRE tunnel? When I tell DHCPD to listen on cisco1 I see this in the log Jul 23 16:21:03 atlantis dhcpd: cisco1: unknown hardware address type 778 Here is the output of ifconfig cisco1 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 8B-8E-28-32-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 inet addr:10.199.0.2 P-t-P:10.199.0.2

Hi All: Ok, here is my network: 192.168.1.0/28 is the network behind the Cisco, the Gig0/1 interface is 192.168.1.1. Linux box is 192.168.1.96/28 behind with 192.168.1.97 the Eth1 interface. I have the Ipsec tunnel up and working between them using preshared keys. So that works. Here is the Cisco tunnel setup: interface Tunnel6 ip address 192.168.2.110 255.255.255.240 tunnel source

Looking for some advise from the experts out there. We do simple traffice shaping and I''m having trouble figuring out how to shape vpn traffic using a tc filter. The following filter works fine for SSH tc filter add dev eth2 parent 1:0 protocol ip u32 match ip sport 22 0xffff classid 1:10 The following throws and "Illegal match" error when trying to filter GRE traffic. tc

Hi, I need a Diameter protocol stack (DDA/Ro) for Asterisk. I came across Traffix Systems Diameter stack. according to the site they got Asterisk ready Diameter stack and also Diameter Gateway that can interface to Asterisk, has anyone tried those out ? thanks Maria

We''re trying to figure out how to have equal cost multipath routing using OSPF (quagga) and have come up with the following... Has anyone done something similar? -- How do you deal with incoming services (mail/web/etc) in such a scenario as below - And does anyone have any suggestions? There''s more detail below.... Diagram and overview: Network A connects to Core1 and Core2

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) (

Hi, I have the following setup. Two linux systems with two [test] external interfaces encrypted with ipsec [transport]. Two gre tunnels that pass 10.200.0.0/24 and 10.200.1.0/24 network traffic. Testing the balanced tunnels I would setup iptraf on one and ping from the other. The results would be as expected; traffic would be split between the two interfaces. Testing with an ftp transfer of

Hi List, FYI. We have been using CentOS 6.4 and have 2 vpn/gre tunnels to separate cisco rtrs using ospf. with kernel 2.6.32-358.23.2 We have upgraded to 6.5 bit using kernel 2.6.32-431.5.1 and the exact same configuration scripts for our vpn/gre tunnels. What I see is the first gre tunnel works great and I get an ospf neighbor. The second tunnel comes up and I can ping across it and I see

Hi! Can I create the unnumbered GRE tunnel with iproute2 utility? Can someone provide me a link/howto/example_config how to do it? The topology is one tunnel between two linux boxes: -- eth1-|__|-eth0 <-------------> eth0-|__|-eth1 -- I''m trying now with: ip tu add tun1 mode gre local loc.IP remote rem.IP ttl 255 dev eth0 ip addr add tun1 0.0.0.0 ip link set tun1 up but it