similar to: reclassify option on policing

Hi there, I have a question with regards to cascading multiple HTB qdiscs. Assume that I want to build the following hierarchy: (qdisc htb 1:0) -> (class htb 1:1) -> (qdisc htb 2:0) -> (class htb 2:1) -> (class htb 2:2) I want to attache aggregate u32 filters at 1:0 for supernets, then at 2:0 (and 3:0, 4:0, etc), I attach the more specific u32 filters for say HTTP and

Hi all, Is the reclassify function useful for really reclassifing ? I couldnt find any samples or documents about this function. I want to pick a packet that''s over a specific rate, and reclassify that to arbitrary class that I specify. I''ve tested with the ingress filter, but it didnt work. (the script below in the ingress, and a simple qdisc, class structure at the egress)

Dear All, I am using a specific approach for my master thesis. In essence, a supervised reclassification is used as an intermediate step to find chemical parameters which are able to reclassify defined groups. These variables will be used in a next step where location and scale estimators of the groups are important. Traditionally linear discriminant analysis is used for reclassification which

Hi folks I have created a script file (dsmark+policing.sh attached) to check graphic an text outputs of simutations, against original examples/dsmark+policing coding (see TCNG Reference Manual-pg.90). It uses tcng coding (*.tcsim file attached) and old tc coding (*.tcsim_old file attached) inserted in tcsim files. Observation 1: The graphic outputs from (*.tc included in *.tcsim) and (*.tc_old

My attempts to configure policing are stopping incoming traffic all together. From the LARTC HOWTO, I gather that the following lines should limit incoming traffic on eth0 to 32kbit by dropping packets above this threshold: tc qdisc add dev eth0 ingress tc filter add dev eth0 parent ffff: protocol ip u32 \ match u8 0x0 0x0 \ police rate 32kbit burst 10k drop \ classid :1 Instead,

Hi all, I have 2 questions regarding policing 1. What is the problem with policing as in most mesages I can find people say don''t but I have not found a why? 2. I have the egress below working (numbers in example are bogus, I know). How do I add an ingress policy? /* compile this file with tcc filename > limit.sh and run that file */ dev eth1 { egress { class (

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

What is the maximum number of devices that can be enslaved in a bridge interface? I have tried enslaving 512 devices. Although the brctl tool did not complain while adding them, when I use brctl show command it only shows 255. Thanks

Hi, I notice that if two or more existing connections match an ingress policing filter, the input bandwidth does not get evenly divided up between the n connections. Kinda like litters of baby animals, where the stronger babies get more access to the mothers teats and grow up bigger and faster than their siblings. The only workaround that''s working for me is to set explicit ingress

Hi, I''m trying to police the incoming traffic by using ingress qdisc,this is what I have in my script tc qdisc add dev eth0 handle ffff: ingress tc filter add dev eth0 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 4 \ handle 1: u32 divisor 1 tc filter add dev eth0 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 4 u32 \ match ip dport 4001 0xffff \ police rate 2000kbit burst 50k drop \ flowid

Hi All, Is there a simple way to convert a string such as c("A", "B" ,"C", "D") to a string of c("Group1", "Group1", "Group2", "Group2"). Naturally I could use the factor function as below but I don't like seeing that warning message (and I don't want to turn off warning messages). Perhaps a function

Simple police filter below works for IPv4 traffic, but not for IPv6 traffic. Tested with 2.4.26 and 2.6.6 kernel. Am I doing something wrong or is it bug? Same filter logic works with imq+htb for both IPv4 and IPv6 traffic. iptables -A PREROUTING -i eth1.101 -t mangle -j MARK --set-mark 0x101 ip6tables -A PREROUTING -i eth1.101 -t mangle -j MARK --set-mark 0x101 tc qdisc add dev eth1.101

This is my simple situation: I want to policy download and shape upload going through my router. It has two interfaces: eth0 (10.4.10.222/24 connected to LAN) and eth1 (172.16.0.1/24 connected to my laptop). My setup: [eth1] tc qdisc add dev eth1 root handle 1: htb default 999 tc qdisc add dev eth1 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 1Mbit tc filter add dev eth1 protocol ip parent 1:0 prio 1 u32 match

I''m having trouble getting ingress policing to work on a bridged device. The bridge contains several interfaces: peth0, vif0.0, vif[1-7]0.1, vif[25].1 . (This is under xen, in case the vif''s didn''t give that away, so peth0 is renamed eth0.) The tc rules I have are: tc qdisc del dev peth0 root tc qdisc del dev peth0 ingress handle ffff: tc qdisc add dev peth0 root

Hi listizens, Complete tc newbie here. I''m in a pinch because of a mail assault on a server. I''ve firewalled away many of the most egregious offenders but non-smtp services are still being DOS''ed because of all the mail traffic. Here is what I''ve tried. (I did say newbie ;) ----------------- #!/bin/sh # # policing parent tc qdisc add dev eth0 handle

Hi all! I''m trying to do proportional marking of real-time traffic to indicate link congestion, and for that, I wish to use the DSMARK filter to mark from, say EF to 0xcc. (an unused DSCP value) By proportional, I mean, if congestion on the egress link is, say 38%, then I shall remark 38 packets of every 100 leaving eth0. I already wrote some scripts, and I can measure the overload

hello sir, i want to control the bandwidth when sending traffic between two logicial address (ip address ) on the same interface (eth0) on the same machine. can i do it using tc tool. i am sending mail using sendmail between 2 users on same machine and sniffing packets at receiving side. but i want to control bandwidth of this traffic so that i do not lose packets at capture.

Hi all I''m new to this list, but not exactly to iproute stuff. I''d like to solve a specific problem with bandwidth coming from different external sources towards the internal network (also the other way around, but I figure that''s not so much a problem, since that is egress traffic shaping). The network looks like this: internet ------ ISP-------[shaping/router]

[I sent this earlier but I guess the list is subscriber-only?] I just set up wondershaper, it has a simple filter on the downstream direction to limit the bandwidth usage: tc qdisc add dev $DEV handle ffff: ingress tc filter add dev $DEV parent ffff: protocol ip prio 50 u32 match ip src \ 0.0.0.0/0 police rate ${DOWNLINK}kbit burst 10k drop flowid :1 This is effective but is there any way to

Hello everybody on the list, I have the following situation where I want to police the speed of incoming packets from specific subnets to 1024kbps and then police all the rest to 256kbps, which is the speed my ISP grants for the rest of the internet. So, eth1 is the one connected to the cable modem and then to the internet. I do: tc qdisc add dev eth1 ingress handle ffff: then: tc filter