similar to: IMQ problems :-(

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>

Hello all, I have been doing a lot of archive searching over the last week reading posts on IMQ and it''s apparent stability / instability. I have seen a number of posts about it not being maintained as well. Can anyone talk to me about IMQ''s stability in a heavy throughput environment (20 Mbps) and what was causing IMQ to fail if you know. Thanks, Mike

Hello All Its first time i posting to this mail list :). I have done something (maybe) important. I write new IMQ device driver based from Martin Devera and Patrick McHardy implementation with device EOS support. My current implementation supporting only egress trafic shaping and kernel 2.4.25. For more details, source and examples have look at my page http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/qos Ill

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

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 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

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

Hi, I''m trying to configure IMQ to work on the same machine with frottle (http://frottle.sourceforge.net). The problem is both feed themselves packets through netfilter queueing mechanism, but currently there can only be one netfilter queue per protocol family. To explain why I need IMQ in the first place I have to explain what frottle does. It is a deamon that tweaks the behaviour of a

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.

Hi all, I manage somo interface in output. I know that i can send packet to the single interface using routing tables. I use IMQ to shape ingress traffic but why i would have to use IMQ on postrouting? When IMQ, on egress, give me advantages? and what are this advantages? Thanks Bye Simone -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Clicca qui:

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

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?

When I try to put all incoming traffic to IMQ on PREROUTING I can''t discern traffic to LAN and traffic to server. When I try to put only INPUT traffic to IMQ... I can''t discern traffic from LAN and from internet. Help me plizz to put all incoming traffic to one IMQ device and all outcoming to other IMQ device and (it''s very important) discern traffic to clients and

Witam I''ve found many examples where packets are redirected to IMQ device in PREROUTING chain for ingress traffic shaping purposes. But is there any sense in redirecting packets to IMQ in FORWARD chain also for ingress traffic shaping purposes? -- Pozdrawiam Marcin mailto:slacklist@op.pl _______________________________________________ LARTC

I''ve followed this list for quite a long time and have even posted a couple of times. I used the early versions of IMQ from Devik (I think that was his name), and it worked well. I only ever got the chance to implement it in my test environment. I now need to implement it in my production environment. My Linux core router has nine interfaces and has a 27 megabit connection to the

Dear all, I know this is not imq mailing list. But many of the users over here have done exactly what i want. Requirement:- I want to tight bound eth1 for 100 kbps but after i want to create many classes of 64 kbps or 50 kbps and others. But the total sum of classes is more than 100 kbps so my eth1 is not restrciting total bandwidth at 100kbps. According to search on google imq is the solution.

Hello, I have eth0 - internet eth1..4 - local networks on eth0 i do $IPTABLES -A POSTROUTING -t nat -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE I want to balance out/in load for eth1..4 and localhost (mainly squid). Nat makes impossible to do it on eth0, so I installed IMQ. I need to get to on imq0 unnnated in/out traffic that I could make priorities for protocols and networks. Do somthing like this: prate=1Mbit

Is IFB realy replacement of IMQ Please Guide -- Failure seldom stops you. What stops you is the fear of failure. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

ive got such network: |--------| |-------------| | WORLD |---|ROUTER/server| ------ NATED LAN |--------| |-------------| I want to use imq on ROUTER, what behaviour to choose ? AA, BA, AB, BB ?? --

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