similar to: Weird quirk with ingress policing

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

[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 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]

Hi all. Since I move on to 2.6 kernel , filter ingress policy based on nfmark won´t work. Sorry for my english. Simple example: iptables -t mangle -I PREROUTING -j MARK --set-mark 1 ${QDISC_ADD} handle ffff: ingress ${FILTER_ADD} parent ffff: protocol ip prio 100 handle 1 fw \ police rate 128Kbit burst 10k drop flowid 2:11 # tc -s -d qdisc ls dev eth0 qdisc ingress ffff: ----------------

Hi, I''m having issues with policing my incoming traffic by matching packet marks made by iptables. I''ve checked as many sites and guides as I can find, and I seem to be doing the exact same thing as they all are, but there''s still no success. As such, I was wondering if anyone can have a quick look to see if I''ve done anything obviously stupid? Essentially, I

Hi, I am trying to do some simple ingress limiting based on fwmark. I know the ability and sense to do INGRESS limiting is ehm... limited ;-) but still I want to try it. I tried several things. === 1 === tcq ingress handle ffff: tcf parent ffff: protocol ip prio 1 handle 1 fw police rate 12mbit burst 10k drop tcf parent ffff: protocol ip prio 1 handle 2 fw police rate 10mbit burst 10k drop

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

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

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Qiu Yu <unicell@gmail.com> wrote: > After some digging in openvswitch code. My wild guess is that vlan tag > reconfiguring triggered iface_configure_qos (vswitchd/bridge.c), which > in turn called netdev_set_policing to reset ingress policing rate. > Although there's no ingress_policing_rate set in my case, existing > ingress qdisc still

Hello, I just found the great howto and started shaping my internet connection. The howto''s last update is a liitle in the past now so I have some questions about how things are done the best way nowadays ;-) To ensure a stable and low latency voip communication I added an HFSC qdisc to device ppp0 (1 Mbit SDSL). There are two classes (by now): One for SIP and RTP and one for the

Hi, Has anyone used TC in a wireless environment, which is dynamic. I understand that the parameters for queuing are static and cannot be changed unless the queuing discipline is deleted and reloaded with different parameters. If anyone can share any experience, that would be helpful. Thanx. Azim. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl

Hi, My problem is following now: I would like to set the filters for port 8099. I have tried it, but nothing happened. When I try the same filter for the port 8080 it is working very well. .) working filter (here I can see the dropped packages): tc filter add dev eth0 parent ffff: protocol ip u32 match ip dport 8080 0xffff police rate 1kbit burst 1 drop flowid :1 .) not working filter (here I

I would like to test police in ingress. I use kernel 2.4.20. I use this configuration: iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -s 10.31.12.2 -d 10.31.11.2 -p udp --dport 1001 -j MARK --set-mark 1 iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -s 10.31.12.2 -d 10.31.11.2 -p udp --dport 1002 -j MARK --set-mark 2 iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -s 10.31.12.2 -d 10.31.11.2 -p udp --dport 1003 -j

Hi, I''ve released an alpha of ''pyshaper'' - a python prog which simplifies traffic-shaping. Requires python2.2 or later, a 2.4 or later Linux kernel with QoS options compiled in, the iproute2 suite and optionally GeoIP as well. pyshaper periodically netstats the current TCP connections, matches them against your rules, and dynamically calculates/generates/executes

With outbound QoS setting in Libvirt XML, libvirt will add a tc ingress qdisc for traffic shaping. Then if you set VLAN tag to that tap device, this qdisc will automatically gone by no reason. Could anyone shed some lights where should I look into? I'm really confused and got no clue here. Thanks! Steps to reproduce -- # virsh start instance-name # virsh dumpxml instance-name ...

Hi, The problem is this is my goal to use the policier and not the iptables. Because with the policier i think you can give more rules and restrictions to the incoming tcpip traffic. So I would prefer to use the policier and not the iptables. Thanks Gernot > GRAMES Gernot > __________________________________ > SIEMENS AG Austria > PSE SMC AI 21 > * Tel.: +43 (0) 5 1707

Hi, all I''ve got problems with tc qdisc ingress. I''m using vanillia kernel 2.6.14.4 patched with http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/routes-2.6.14-12.diff, and iproute2-2.6.14-051107. i am using ingress to limit incoming traffic : (DEV is eth1 / DOWNLINK is 7700) # attach ingress policer: tc qdisc add dev $DEV handle ffff: ingress # filter *everything* to it (0.0.0.0/0), drop everything

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 find this diagram which details the kernel packet traveling : http://www.docum.org/docum.org/kptd/ Is it up to date ? I made some test and I put a DNAT rules in the PREROUTING table of an interface and I attach it a ingress policy, the dst IP wasn''t changed. the DNAT it isn''t yet make. I''ve another question (I''m not sure is it the good mailing list), for

Hi, Thanks for the fast response, .)Okay I tried your suggestion for my port 8099 and nothing happened: The tcp ip information goes from a firewall to my port 8099 and this port is than routed to the original 8080, I do that because I don`t want to dirturb my port 8080. But it seams the ingress filter doesn`t work on it!! iptables -L -t nat Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt