similar to: Problems after Kernel upgrade to 2.6.10

I have a setup where I have three NIC in a Debian box. I have eth1 conected to internet and eth0 NAT''ed to 192.168.1.1. eth1 and eth2 are bridged together, given ip 192.168.122.2. What I want to achieve is to perform traffic shaping on the bridge as well as prioritizing the traffic from eth0 very low. (This is from trental flat ...) However it seems that I am unable to perform thhe

Hi, I have been modifying the Wonder shaper to include another queue. My understanding was packets would be de queued to hardware in the following order: cbq1 -> sfq10 > sfq20 > sfq30. Also we only move onto the next queue when the preceding one is empty. However is seems to be prio xx number that reflects the order packets are de queued not to what flowid they belong to. If I

hey guys i am regulating the traffic to & fro by my network through a linux gateway , its behaving strange. i regulated Downlink to 2Mbps & UPlLINK to 500Kbps. both perform well when those are done independent i.e. one at a time but when i do both from a client system ..the downlink however continues at 2mbps but the uplink falls down to 100kbps? is something wrong with my script or

Hi everybody, I have a network that only uses terminal services. Look at the diagram. 20 machines running WinXP <-> LinuxFW-1 <-> 1Mbit link dedicated fiber link <–> LinuxFW-2 <–> Terminal Server I’d like to give the maximum priority for bandwidth to terminal services (port 3389). I’ve changed the CBQ script from LARTC site to suite my needs, but every time I

Hi, I''m trying to modify the Wondershaper script so achieve the following. 1. Prioritize traffic to the few IP addresses. 2. Everyone else should get a fair amount of bandwidth The problem I am facing is when I run this script is that the bandwidth seems to get halved. I tried to apply this script to a site where the upstream and downstream were fully saturated. I immediately saw

I''ve been following the HOWTO, and reading mailing list discussions about throttling bandwidth, and have had some success, but I just want to tie off some loose ends. Essentially what I am wanting to do is to keep our bandwidth usage below 1megabit, because if we go over we get charged for that traffic. I''ve used some of the examples from the HOWTO to limit our bandwidth, but I

Hi folks, I read the fantastic LARTC How-to and after that i tried to limit one host in my LAN for both down-and upload bandwidth usage. I took section 15.9. and added uplink-limiting as I understood it from the previous chapters. Unfortunately it doesn''t work. I ran the script and went to the specified PC, started a download, and watched the rate. The rate was always about 2000 kbit/s,

Did anyone ever answer this one? THIS is what I am trying to do: >[LARTC] cbq+sfq and DSCP marking >Maria Joana Urbano stmaria@dei.uc.pt >Thu, 13 Feb 2003 19:29:42 +0000 > > * Previous message: [LARTC] Monitoring.... > * Next message: [LARTC] two routes 1 network card > * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] >

Hi all, I have installed 2.4.5 kernel, Debian Potato. my tc script: #!/bin/bash tc qdisc add dev eth1 root handle 20: cbq bandwidth 10Mbit avpkt 1000 echo root tc class add dev eth1 parent 20:0 classid 20:1 cbq bandwidth 10Mbit rate \ 10Mbit allot 1514 weight 1Mbit prio 8 maxburst 20 avpkt 1000 echo class tc class add dev eth1 parent 20:1 classid 20:100 cbq bandwidth 10Mbit rate \ 5Mbit allot

Hello, I''m using tc to limit the bandwidth of our wireless customers. I have a working script, but I''m not happy with it. I''m trying to write a more sophisticated script, but when I run it, it give me this error: RTNETLINK answers: File exists I have no idea what this error means or how to fix it. Here is a portion of the script (the whole script shapes several

Hi all, I''m having some problems setting up qdiscs on a bridge.The config looks a little like this: ifconfig ifb0 up # Bring up the IFB for this bridge. tc qdisc add dev eth2 ingress tc qdisc add dev eth3 ingress tc qdisc add dev ifb0 root handle 1:0 cbq bandwidth 100Mbit avpkt 1000 cell 8 # Raw qdiscs on each bridge port tc qdisc add dev eth2 root handle 1:0 cbq bandwidth

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 All, I''m using iptables-1.2.7a on RedHat8 kernel 2.4.20. I wanted to limit the file-sharing traffic to the internet. I marked the packets with iptables: iptables -A FORWARD -t mangle -p tcp -s 192.168.1.1/24 -d ! 192.168.1.1/24 --dport 1024:1862 -j MARK --set-mark 1 iptables -A FORWARD -t mangle -p tcp -s 192.168.1.1/24 -d ! 192.168.1.1/24 --dport 1864:65535 -j MARK --set-mark 1

I need to shape traffic from some IP on one LAN, but I''m in trouble. There is a linux 2.4.26 connected to the Internet (eth0) / LAN(eth1) doing NAT. I''m using VLANs in the LAN Interface, that is connected to a 3Com SuperStack II in a 802.1Q tagged port. I want to create a class that will limit the traffic at 384Kbit/s. I want to create two leaf classes that limit the traffic at

Hi All, I found 2 unusual behavior with u32 classifier in Kernel 2.4.12. I’ve u32 compiled as module. 1> u32 filter seems not working if there is already some fw filter used for some other class. In order to get u32 working I’ve to delete root class, which in terms delete all fw filters too, and then same command for u32 works. fw is also compiled as module. 2> If I add u32 filter to my

Hello all, I''ve got a couple redundant (Spanning Tree Protocol) boxes running FC1 minimal install + bridge-utils and they are working great for QoS + ntop monitoring. I''m wondering if I should handle the VoIP traffic a little differently. I don''t mind letting VoIP and Video lend out traffic when it isn''t being used, so that''s why I gave them such

Hello Thilo, What did you find superior with CBQ-wondershaper over HTB-wondershaper? We have not been using wondershaper specifically but our simple tests so far seem to show that htb is much easier to configure for a given target shape (i.,e accurate) compared to CBQ. Torsten -----Original Message----- From: Thilo Schulz [mailto:arny@ats.s.bawue.de] Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 8:55 AM To:

Hello, really new to advanced linux routing, but I have managed to setup something that sort of works for my needs. I have a linux box with this configuration: Internet - eth0 - eth1 - many users I''m using a NAT to allow my users Internet access. On some users, I wish to shape their download speeds as to not overload our outside connection. Here is what I do to shape them at 64k

Hi, I''m really new to traffic shaping and try to implement the wshaper.htb script. I have a linux box that serves as vdr, mldonkey, samba, apache and mailserver (imap), connected to my LAN with 100mbit. I''m connected to the inet via adsl with a hardware router/firewall, got 384k downlink 64k uplink. When I have mldonkey running, imap (via Outlook) gets *very* slow (mails with

Hello! I have a problem here. I set up a Linux 2.4 machine to do bandwidth limiting for some of our customers. Current setup is something like this: |--------| backbone |-------| |---------| |Internet|225.1-----------225.10|limiter|228.1----228.10|cust. gw2| |--------| | eth0 |-------| eth1 |---------| | 225.20