similar to: Combining ingress and egress ( IMQ+HTB)

Hi, I am trying to do both ingress and egress bandwidth management on a bridge. eth0 is the WAN interface. IPTraf shows that the following script is running successfully and it limits bandwidth both ways to 256 KB However when I want to see the statistics using tc - it only shows me stats for htb class and not for ingress class. The tc output is as follows: tc -s -d class show dev eth0 class

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?

ingress can be used to control the incoming packet, such as: tc qdisc add dev eth0 handle ffff: ingress tc filter add dev eth0 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 5 u32 match ip src 172.16.1.11 police rate 10kbit burst 10k drop flowid :1 tc filter add dev eth0 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 5 u32 match ip src 172.16.1.22 police rate 10kbit burst 10k drop flowid :2 first ,I do not sure these method can

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

Hi, I have a Debian that is connected to Internet in eth0, and to a LAN in eth1. I wanted to control traffic with HTB, dividing it depending on what kind of traffic is (Mail, Application Server and others). Would it be good to use HTB qdisc in eth0 egress to control outgoing traffic and HTB qdisc in eth1 egress to control incoming traffic? Or the only way to control incoming traffic is with eth0

Is IFB realy replacement of IMQ Please Guide -- 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

-----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

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 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]

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

Hello, Some time ago I''ve read somewhere that local traffic in IMQ could hung up the whole system but it was corrected long time ago. So I was very surprised yesterday when it occurred not true. While testing IMQ I''ve observed for some time that - if you tag some local traffic with iptables both in pre- and postrouting - kernel is hunging up. It is happening quite quick with

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:

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

[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 have more ethernet cards. Egress shaping with HTB over eth0 works fine, ingress shaping with HTB over IMQ works also fine, but in both of cases I use only one class of traffic. Now I want to divide traffic to 3 classes on other interface (egress to ineternal network). I try this command sequense tc qdisc add dev eth1 root handle 1: htb default 12 tc class add dev eth1 parent 1: classid

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 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

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''m trying to do some very simple rate-shaping on an interface. I want to limit my 100baseT interface to 7 megs both ingress and egress of the interface. I''ve been hacking my way through the documentation and some examples and I''ve come up with the following configuration for tcng that seems to do what I want. I''m curious if some of the other experts out

hi all. i really need help. i need a working example on shaping the ingress per user using tcng without IMQon a mechine which has two interfaces, and acts like a firewall, and NAT for intrenet connection sharing: eth0 is the external facing the Internet. eth1 is the internal towards my LAN/office network. Please i dont want other than tcng code. iptables code i read on some pages seems