similar to: a couple of questions regarding htb

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

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 ...

[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

Hi, I''m looking for info about IFB devices and how I can use it to incomming traffic shapping. Has IFB any web about it? Do any body known where I can find more info about it? I found this: http://linux-net.osdl.org/index.php/IFB But I can''t stand fine how to use it to allow many ifb''s devices or how to use it with "tc actions". Any help? Thanks --

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

Hi I have built a custom TMB Mandrake kernel (2.4.22) with IMQ and ESFQ support. I statically compiled both (mistake?) ESFQ is sorted and working fine (I have succesfully patched IPROUTE2). I have got to the stage where I can see the IMQ device as UP with ifconfig. I can use TC to add QDISCs to the IMQ device. However I just cannot sort out IPTABLES to actually redirect packets to the IMQ

Hi all, Another requirement we have is that traffic entering the DS domain be classified then subsequently assigned a (different?) DSCP based upon its classification. For illustrative purposes only let''s say (for traffic entering the DS domain on dev eth0): - WWW traffic would be marked BE - traffic destined for 10.10.10.10 would be marked AF11 - VoIP traffic from 20.20.20.20 would

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

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 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

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>

Hi, I have typical situation, local LAN with private addresses, translated via NAT to internet. I need to shape ingress traffic (from internet to local LAN) in several HTB queues accorting to destination (private not public) IP. So I need mark packets to divide them to corresponding queue. According to http://www.docum.org/stef.coene/qos/kptd/ I thing I have only one way how to do it, because

On 2/19/07, Salatiel Filho <salatiel.filho@gmail.com> wrote: > Well , thanks to imq all my client machines are now shaped and > everything is great ... > But now i have a doubt , is there a way to shape the traffic that goes > to the route [doing a wget from the router for example ]? > > > I have a PREROUTING IMQ0 and a POSTROUTING IMQ1 , everything is > working like

Two easy questions after having read the LARTC HOWTO document (which by the way is a *fantastic* document. Congratulations to all who contributed!) First is: Can I prioritise my "drops" on incoming traffic when the link is overloaded. ie instead of just tail dropping, can I "prefer" to drop certain classes of traffic? If so, do I do this by setting up, say, a HTB tree

I have two interfaces, eth0 and eth1 but i can''t discern the egress traffic than ingress traffic. I need to apply htb qdisc in both directions, and I read that I need the IMQ patch to do this, because in ingress qdisc i can''t apply htb qdisc...but where is the ingress qdisc? affect the traffic that goes from eth0 to eth1 or is for the traffic that goes from eth1 to eth0?

Server : eth0 - internet DSL eth1 - LAN wlan0 - wireles LAN I want server to share bandwith from eth0 evenly for users on eth1 and wlan0. How can i make it ? Is it possible ? As far as i know htb splits outgoing bandwith on one device only. ---------------------------------------------------- Grypa? Damy radę! Sprawdź jak jej zapowbiegać, a jeśli już za późno ...jak leczyć - grypa.wp.pl

How to use IFB as replacement of IMQ There is not much documentation about it Please explain with example -- 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

Hi all, this is really not really very easy to understand, or, to get in. Well, I''ve the following configuration on the router box: LAN - interface: eth0 - network: 192.168.2.5/24 - bandwidth: 100Mbit/s INET interface - interface: ppp0 - network: .dynamic.ip./0 - bandwidth: DOWN=1536kbit/s and UP=256kbit/s the LAN interface is to serve 6 other clients with internet and

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:

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.