> On Tuesday 13 August 2002 21:58, Jussi Mäki wrote:
> > I'm trying to limit the available bandwidth for an single ip address, i've
> > got 3 different scripts which all work with kernel 2.2.17 and all the
> > 2.4.x kernel's i've tested..
> >
> > The problem is that when for example i limit the tr
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 21:58, Jussi Mäki wrote:
> I'm trying to limit the available bandwidth for an single ip address, i've
> got 3 different scripts which all work with kernel 2.2.17 and all the
> 2.4.x kernel's i've tested..
>
> The problem is that when for example i limit the traffic to 512
I'm trying to limit the available bandwidth for an single ip address, i've
got 3 different scripts which all work with kernel 2.2.17 and all the
2.4.x kernel's i've tested..
The problem is that when for example i limit the traffic to 512kbit/s i'm
only getting about 300kbit/s and this is only wi
> i have acheived restrictinng both in&out trafic using imq0.. i have
> marked the packets on different ineterface, hence sending them to the
> rules i want & then used **FORWARD** to imq .!.. it works pretty good,
> though done in a test bed of 4 ip.. i want to scale it to our running
> linux box
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 17:41, Petre Bandac wrote:
> I want to shape the traffic on the http port and further on shape it if the
> destination ip is on some network I specify
>
> however, only the first rule is applied ... why ?
Because you add both rules to the same parent. When one rule is ma
I want to shape the traffic on the http port and further on shape it if the
destination ip is on some network I specify
however, only the first rule is applied ... why ?
#http
$filtru prio 1 u32 match ip sport 80 0x flowid 1:11
#droop :-)
$filtru prio 1 u32 match ip src x.x.x.x \
Stef Coene wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 August 2002 01:07, Tobias Geiger wrote:
>
>>Arindam Haldar wrote:
>>
>>>hi Alex,
>>>thanx so much.. :) .. thanx to all
>>>my IMQ & htb3 test rules are working ok.. the best part--> imq handling
>>>both in & out traffic now.. :)
>>
>>I also had this setup, and i
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 04:27, Cheng Kwok Wing, William wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> Does it mean that "fw" has implemented hashing
> implicitly??
>
> Suppose I've the following fitler rules:
> tc filter add dev eth0 parent 1: protocol ip prio 3
> handle 1 fw
> tc filter add dev e
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 01:07, Tobias Geiger wrote:
> Arindam Haldar wrote:
> > hi Alex,
> > thanx so much.. :) .. thanx to all
> > my IMQ & htb3 test rules are working ok.. the best part--> imq handling
> > both in & out traffic now.. :)
>
> I also had this setup, and i also thought of it as
