similar to: Hashing table based on FWMARK

I''m looking for a way to configure a qdisc or filter to drop all packets. The logic behind this is that I''m using the u32 hashing tables to get move my filters from iptables to tc filters. This will translate into much less per-packet processing for me. However, I need a way to drop any packets that don''t match any of the filters. Paul C. Diem PCDiem@FoxValley.net

I have a new SMART1050SLT Tripp Lite UPS that both tripplite and tripplitesu drivers hate. Both simply time out with a "can't find" message. Does anyone know about the SmartPro series?

I've having no success trying to use the tripplite driver to communicate with a Tripp-Lite SMART1500XL via the serial port. I'm using the cable that was included with the UPS. The tripplite driver simply returns "Failed - giving up..." after 20 seconds. I have verified that the tripplite driver is sending ":W" out the serial port. I am able to use Tripp-Lite's

Hello I have 2 class-B networks (172.22.0.0/16 and 172.23.0.0/16, over 130k of ip''s) and need to setup traffic tbf shapers with 64kb/s for each ip from 172.22.0.0/16 and 128kb/s for each ip from 172.23.0.0/16 just read lartc and don''t understand how to use u32 for decreasing number of rules and hashing

Hi i have 2 class C 80.97.103.0/24 and 81.180.12.0/24 but i dont konw how to set hashing tables for HTB tc add dev eth0 parent 1: prio 0 handle 1: protocol ip u32 divisor 256 tc add dev eth0 parent 1: prio 0 protocol ip u32 match src 80.97.103.0/24 hashkey mask 0x000000FF at 12 link 1: but i want 2 hashkey for 80.97.103.0/24 and for 81.180.12.0/24 can somebody help me ?

Hi all, I am a newbie and I have not played a lot with tc utility. I have red maybe everything that has to do with massive filtering (maybe not everything). If you can help me on this I would appriciate that very much. I use tc utility with iproute2-ss040831. I want to limit bandwidth for the 192.168.0.0/16 subnet using this script. tc qdisc del dev eth0 root tc qdisc add dev eth0 root

I''m having trouble routing on high fwmarks, I want to use a lot of different marks for 2 routes so that I can QoS based on the marks ip rule looks like this: 0: from all lookup local 32751: from all fwmark 31 lookup dslout 32752: from all fwmark 30 lookup dslout 32753: from all fwmark 29 lookup dslout 32754: from all fwmark 28 lookup dslout 32755: from

Could someone comment on the benefits of using CLASSIFY vs fwmark (or vice versa) in iptables? I''m getting ready to implement some basic tc for VoIP and most of the examples seem to use the (older?) fwmark syntax. Should I convert these to CLASSIFY? Can the two syntaxes be mixed? Also with U32? TIA, Edwin -- <=+=+=+==+=+=+==+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=> Edwin Whitelaw, P.E. New River

Hello! This arguments never run on my system, but I need this: #!/bin/bash -x echo "1" iptables -t mangle -p tcp -d 0/0 --dport 80 -j MARK --set-mark 2 echo "2" echo "201 T1" >> /etc/iproute2/rt_tables echo "3" ip rule add fwmark 2 table T1 echo "4" ip route add default via 192.168.21.2 dev eth1 table T1 echo "5" ip route

Hi everybody, I''m trying to set up routing for 2 links to the internet on a box which produces traffic itself (e.g. DNS) and will route all our local traffic. AS one route is quick and expensive and the other one slow and cheap, I want to be able to route packets for some high-level protocols to the second link. If I correctly understood table 3-2 in

Hey A wise man said to me that Hashing filters was my solution to rock the world, and making my life alot easier. When applying 4000 rules, the system had to check them all for match. But with hassing it would only require 1-2 checks. Even though when i had read the lartc on the subject i was no less that a question mark. If anyone have played with it, and have a working, logic configuration

Hi all, I need to route local generated packages depending on which tcp or udp service I need to use. To accomplish this I have configured two routing tables: [root at lothlorien ~]# ip ru ls 0: from all lookup 255 32762: from all fwmark 0x2 lookup FirstLan 32763: from all fwmark 0x1 lookup SecondLan 32764: from 172.25.80.10 lookup SecondLan 32765: from 172.25.70.18 lookup FirstLan

how can I check whether packets are being marked as per my tcrules file? 4 0.0.0.0/0 202.37.230.93 udp 500 4 fw 0.0.0.0/0 udp 500 also can someone confirm what ports are needed to be opened for ipsec? 1701,1723,47,500 ??? P.

Hey all, I had asked a question a little while ago about CPU usage being outrageous while using tc and a cbq qdisc. Ed was very kind and offered a few suggestions. One of these was to look at hashing. So after pounding away at it for about a week, I have a general understanding of how it works and have tried to implement it. Unfortunately, and quite obviously since I''m posting here, it

Hi, I''ve been working on hashing in tc for a month. Since there are only a limited number of avaialbe example on hashing, I''ll be appreciate if someone can my questions as follows: 1. tc filter add dev eth1 protocol ip perent 1:0 \ prio 5 u32 ht 800:: \ match ip src 1.2.0.0/16 \ hashkey mask 0x000000ff at 12 \ link 2: It seems that the hashkey make can only applied to ip

Hi! There is one thing I can''t do. In my country we have to pay for "foreign" internet. Local internet is cheap and fast, but foreign is slow and expensive. So I want do following: mark every packet with iptables, where --set-mark 1 for foreign internet, but --set-mark 2 for local internet next when I got all traffic marking, I need to assign traffic to users so I make

Is the 192.168.1.2 an ip on the router? If yes, you''ll have to mark in OUTPUT, not PREROUTING, also, after you set up the rules and routes, did you an ip route flush cache ? I hope these works On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:02:32 -0700, Jens <jens@pacificsun.ca> wrote: > I have a particular problem that has caused me grief for some time now and > even though the answer is probably

Hello lartc maintainers and users! I have a router with two NICs. One NIC is connected to the Internet and the other to my internal LAN. I made a script for priorizing interactive traffic. The script matches TOS Minimize-Delay for priorizing interactive trafic, and fwmark for metropolitan packets. I have two root classes (simulating two circuits) : 1:1 for internet and 1:3 for metropolitan.

Hi, I have a computer which is used as router/firewall/VPN with four network card. One connected on the LAN (br0, 10.0.0.0/24), the three others to three different ISP, eth0 192.168.1.0/29, eth1 192.168.0.0/24, eth2 192.168.2.0/29. This computer is under Linux 2.6.11 with the Julian Anastasov routes patch. The configuration by default is to balance the load on the three interfaces. Then, I

Hi all, I want to divide the incoming traffic between what should go to the firewall and what should be forwarded to the local network behind it. I started with the IMQ example config, but added an extra htb class right below "10:1" to get the two sfq''s to borrow each other''s bandwidth. However, I can''t figure out how to set the two marks. According to this