similar to: imq or ingress+htb?

Hey list I have almost gotten my shaping setup up and running as planned. The last barrier seems to be tcp overshooting availible bandwidth when its starting a transfer, and thereby bursting the line, so ping rises for a moment. At least this is my best guess at the problem :) There is a possibility that its just plain old traffic being bursty for some reason.. I am using bittorrent to test this,

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

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

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.

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

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 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 /

-----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

Hi ! I wanted to shape my analog modem connection so I took these two lines from the ''wondershaper'' script: 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} burst 10k drop flowid :1 with DEV=ppp0 and DOWNLINK=24kbit. But, when I activate it, nothing comes back from the

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 all, I found in http://trash.net/~kaber/imq/index.html#sources the precompiled iptables shared libs for 1.2.6 & 1.2.5, but my version is 1.2.9 (in Debian Sid) and I don''t know how to patch the .deb file. I need the -j IMQ target... ¿What can I do? Thanks!

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''ve following problem. One of our gateway router, which connects some of our customers should have bandwith limit. So customer A with IP XX should have 2 Mbit, customer B with IP YY should have 10 Mbit. There is no need of borrowing bandwith so no fairness needed. My simple question: with which technique should I manage this shaping? Or is there any existing project which

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?

Hello, I am using the following iptables POSTROUTING rule to NAT some RFC 1918 addresses: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.19.23 ! 192.168.0.0/255.255.0.0 -p tcp --dport 80 -j SNAT --to-source 10.32.4.2 (I am using SNAT instead of MASQUERADE for performance reasons). I have several addresses on the 192.168.0.0/16 subnet that I am SNAT''ing similarly. Problem is, ''tc

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

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I have a linux system with 4 ethernet interfaces, eth0 goes to the internet, eth1, eth2, and eth3 are NAT''d LANs. I want to use an ingress filter to prioritize bandwidth (downstream from internet) to various IPs. I want to sett it up something like this.... eth0 <--[NAT]--> dummy0 <---> dummy1 <---> eth1,eth2,eth3 dummy1