similar to: How does it look like when IMQ crashes?

Hi, i tried to insmod the imq.o module from http://pupa.da.ru/imq after a successful compile, but it thows this error: > insmod imq.o imq.o: unresolved symbol nf_unregister_hook imq.o: unresolved symbol nf_register_hook I think I have some kernel options disabled, does anyone know which one(s)? Thanks cord _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list /

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

Hello, I wrote a simple traffic shaping script (below) that should have allowed me to shape my internet traffic a bit (ppp0 - adsl 128kbit/64kbit; local interface eth0). The script works only partially - the speed is being limited but too much. Without running this script my download rate is about 10kBytes (with second computer also downloading at about 6kBytes). After running it my download speed

Hello, Sorry for the many Ccs, but I hope to reach all parties involved. I want to do traffic shaping with NAT and I wanted to do it with IFB instead of IMQ [1]. I tried a lot of things but now I am stuck (and maybe confused). The setup: eth0 eth1 WAN/(Internet) <-> Linux Router <-> LAN Linux router: - does NAT for the LANs - runs local processes

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''ve successfully implemented shaping and policing with HTB for my SDSL line. Some tips&tricks I discovered which were not covered in the FAQs and docs I read: - To discover the appropriate rate for your line, flood it with traffic and reduce the rate until the matching class starts to show a consistent backlog -- only then you''ve managed to take the queue away

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I''ve just discovered that trying to pass traffic from multiple interfaces through the same imq is a Bad Thing(tm). A quick search of "HTB IMQ panic" showed me older posts on this list saying that it''s simply incorrect to pass such traffic through the same imq dev. I''m now back to square one on using the linux

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

lartc-request,hello! 　　 I find a line in tbf_change() in sch_tbf.c: ptab = xchg(&q->P_tab, ptab); Can I consider that the pointers are exchanged between q->P_tab and ptab? as following: prev=q->R_tab; q->R_tab = rtab; rtab = prev; Is my understanding righ? ======= 2002-03-23 12:01:00 you wrote:======= >Send LARTC mailing list

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, does anyone have a working solution for the shaping both incoming and outgoing traffic in such way, that for a given class the sum of incoming and outgoing traffic is specified? My ISP does the same thing, it gives me just a line of a defined rate, no matter the traffic direction (i.e. here is the line, the clock speed is 1024kbps, do what you want). I''m a litte bit familiar

Hi, I''ve never actually even tried to use the IMQ device before, but I''ve watched the emails go back and forth on various problems associated with it, and what looks like some general instability. How stable is it really ? Is it suitable for full-time use on a large number of routers ? Has anyone used it on ipsec0 + eth0 devices for shaping ? and lastly, any difference

I want to use snort inline for ips and imq for bandwidth shaping When i have inserted imq module ip_queue module insertion giving error Is it possible to use both at the same time -- 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 stef oone more pb while shaping incoming traffic with imq .this one tc qdisc add dev imq0 root handle 1: htb default 20 tc class add dev imq0 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 2mbit burst 15k tc class add dev imq0 parent 1:1 classid 1:10 htb rate 1mbit tc class add dev imq0 parent 1:1 classid 1:20 htb rate 1mbit tc qdisc add dev imq0 parent 1:10 handle 10: pfifo tc qdisc add dev imq0 parent

Hi, I''ve read ADSL-Bandwidth-Management-HOWTO http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/ADSL-Bandwidth-Management-HOWTO/implementation.htm l#AEN166 and I''ve a doubt from script: [ ... ] # DNS name resolution (small packets) iptables -t mangle -A MYSHAPER-OUT -p udp -j MARK --set-mark 21 [ ... ] That is a bug ? I think that " DNS name resolution (small packets) " is better

Hello, I''m trying to get my shaper to work, but have only a partial success. Can someone help me with that. My setup unfortunately is not so trivial, but I think some people could have similar one... 1. There is a router connected to the internet line via interface eth0 2. There are users connected to the router via two interfaces : eth1 and wlan0 3. All users are assigned private IP

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, Please to advice me. I become crazy because i cannot find where can be problem. Obviously i miss something, but what ? I have Linux router for traffic control / ~400 users , 100 mbit bandwidth / . evereting was great until i try to implement IMQ for ingress shaping. Problem that i have is when i start follow iptables rule iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -j IMQ --todev 0 without

hi all, i have tried out both IMQ and shaping transmit on 2 NICS downstream and upstream respectively, which method is preferred in terms of accuracy, stability etc pls advise tc _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/