similar to: u32 hashing bug?

hi I would like to ask is the following config correct for what I want to achieve ... Scenario: I have 3 networks 192.168.12.0/24, 192.168.48.0/24, 192.168.56.0/24 and most of the users use 1 IP, some of them more... If I make flat u32-filter search the box will make aprox/max 3 * 256 = 768 checks for every IP, so i''m deciding to deploy u32 hashes.. Here is the config I think to use

Hi i have 2 class C 80.97.103.0/24 and 81.180.12.0/24 but i dont konw how to set hashing tables for HTB tc add dev eth0 parent 1: prio 0 handle 1: protocol ip u32 divisor 256 tc add dev eth0 parent 1: prio 0 protocol ip u32 match src 80.97.103.0/24 hashkey mask 0x000000FF at 12 link 1: but i want 2 hashkey for 80.97.103.0/24 and for 81.180.12.0/24 can somebody help me ?

Hi i have 2 class C 80.97.103.0/24 and 81.180.12.0/24 but i dont konw how to set hashing tables for HTB tc add dev eth0 parent 1: prio 0 handle 1: protocol ip u32 divisor 256 tc add dev eth0 parent 1: prio 0 protocol ip u32 match src 80.97.103.0/24 hashkey mask 0x000000FF at 12 link 1: but i want 2 hashkey for 80.97.103.0/24 and for 81.180.12.0/24 can somebody help me ? this is a part fo my

Hi, I am trying to put together a hashing filter based on example provided in LARTC how-to document. I want to link two hashing filters together where first one will use 3rd octet of an IP address as hashkey and second one will use 4th octet as hash key. How do I tell mask the address so that u32 filter uses 3rd octet as hashkey? Venkatesh K _______________________________________________

Sorry for all the questions I''m just trying to understand how it all works. Thank you for your time. Is the following configuration possible? where ht 800 links to 3: for the 3rd Octet in the IP and then 3: links to 4: for the fourth Octet? tc filter add dev eth0 parent 1:0 prio 10 handle 3: protocol ip u32 divisor 256 tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent 1:0 prio 10 u32 ht 800::

Hi all, I am a newbie and I have not played a lot with tc utility. I have red maybe everything that has to do with massive filtering (maybe not everything). If you can help me on this I would appriciate that very much. I use tc utility with iproute2-ss040831. I want to limit bandwidth for the 192.168.0.0/16 subnet using this script. tc qdisc del dev eth0 root tc qdisc add dev eth0 root

iproute2 distribution in README.iproute2+tc includes toward the end an example of usage of syntax ''offset mask'' as follows: # Lookup hash table, if it is not fragmented frame # Use protocol as hash key $TC filter add dev eth1 parent 1:0 prio 5 handle ::1 u32 ht 800:: \ match ip nofrag \ offset mask 0x0F00 shift 6 \ hashkey mask 0x00ff0000 at 8 \ link 1: Also, identical

Hi, I''ve been working on hashing in tc for a month. Since there are only a limited number of avaialbe example on hashing, I''ll be appreciate if someone can my questions as follows: 1. tc filter add dev eth1 protocol ip perent 1:0 \ prio 5 u32 ht 800:: \ match ip src 1.2.0.0/16 \ hashkey mask 0x000000ff at 12 \ link 2: It seems that the hashkey make can only applied to ip

Hi I''m doing traffic shaping with tc on ''10.0.0.0/30'' and ''10.0.0.28/30''. I want to delete part of shaping rules on the fly. (see my configuration at the end of this mail) I wan''t to delete the shaping for ''10.0.0.0/30'' on the fly while still keeping the shaping for part ''10.0.0.28/30'' running. When I for

Hi, I need to set filter-hash and use source-port as hashkey. It seems that I can''t use "hashkey" without using "match". I am using following commands: tc qdisc add ... root handle 1:0 htb # Loop to add 1000 classes (i = 1 to 1000) tc class add ... parent 1:0 classid 1:$i #set filters tc filter add ... protocol ip parent 1:0 u32 tc filter add ...

Hi I have been playing with tc. I''m using htb and sfq. I tried to setup shaping of every ip address within a /20. I found that there must be an upper limit of about 2096 on the number of rules (classes, qdiscs or filters). I was testing a /20 which gives 4096 classes, qdiscs and filters. I''m using hashkey to optimize processing of frames. When executing the script below - it

Hello I have 2 class-B networks (172.22.0.0/16 and 172.23.0.0/16, over 130k of ip''s) and need to setup traffic tbf shapers with 64kb/s for each ip from 172.22.0.0/16 and 128kb/s for each ip from 172.23.0.0/16 just read lartc and don''t understand how to use u32 for decreasing number of rules and hashing

Hello! I have a quite complicated setup. In my network on each interface there is bandwidth limitation for each user. Booth outgoing (on interface itself) and incoming (attached IMQ) traffic. There is main HTB class which limits bandwidth for whole interface and HTB subclasses for each user. Filtering is done with hashing filters. This setup was working correctly. But now in the network I

What is the difference between lines below? $TC filter add dev imq0 parent 1:0 prio 5 handle 1: protocol ip u32 divisor 1 $TC filter add dev imq0 parent 1:0 prio 5 handle 2: protocol ip u32 divisor 256 What divisor is doing? And the last problem... $TC filter add dev imq0 protocol ip parent 1:0 prio 5 u32 ht 800:: match ip src 10.0.0.0/16 hashkey mask 0x000000ff at 12 link 2: Why after ht

I have a question about a few things: ok when you have parent x:x and handle x:x link x:x flowid and so on. What is the max values of each of these, also where these or some of these hex numbers? I tried this on redhat 7.3 so there may have been some updates, but this is one of the tests I did. [root@RL1 root]# tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent 1:0 prio 10 u32 ht fffe:: match ip dst

List admins. Can you fix the issue described below, ie jamal''s posts to the lists bouncing, please? -------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Russell Stuart <russell-lartc@stuart.id.au> To: hadi@cyberus.ca Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] TC: bug fixes to the "sample" clause Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:16:52

Hi, I am currently working on the TC. I have seen some behaviour which seems to be odd. I know someone in the mailing list would have seen this problem or may have some fix for this problem. When I try to include u32 filters with different priority or pref, I could see the filters being set on all the priority''s irrespective of the priority number. See my sample script below and the

Hi, is it possible to use firewall mark as an u32 hash key? What i understood from the source code is that only 32-bit number inside of the packet can be used as a hash key, though fw mark can be matched using u32 match(with 2.6 kernel and recent iproute2 version). Thanks, -b42

Hi there, I''m having a bit of a headache because of the u32 filter with hashing... My router administration system updates filter configuration differentially. Therefore I need to delete filters sometimes. I know that by deleting root class I''d make all filters go away, but I can''t use that option in this particular case. When I delete even a single u32 hashed filter I

Hi all.. I have found some problems on smbfs module in 2.4.18 kernel. I compiled it by myself (not the very first kernel compilation in my life ;-)) and then I have got it. Looks like it touch smbfs module as when I recompile 2.4.18 modules with smbfs sources changed to sources of smbfs from 2.4.17 problem disappears!! My mainboard is Abit BE6 with Pentium III 450 MHz. I am using SuSE 7.3 with