Shaping is done on the physical device irrespective of number of virtual
interface unless there is a specific virtual device support in kernel like
for IMQ. Best option would be to shape traffic on eth1 and eth0. Activate
policing for ingress queue on eth0 (external interface). Queue builds up for
Sebastian Strollo has provided a fix for the "Dead-loop on netdevice
imq"-issue,
new patches are available at http://trash.net/~kaber . The old page at
http://luxik.cdi.cz/~patrick/imq has been updated to redirect there. IMQ
now also
doesn't add the input/output device's link-layer header-sizes t
> From: "sam Njengah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 07:57:36 -0700
> Subject: [LARTC] b/w management by ip
>
> could anyone be having a sample configuration of bandwidth
> management by =
> ip ?
>
Here is an example:
http://www.geocities.com/jame_sj/
Yo
Title: Mensaje
Prueba..
For information about ipchains/iptables see www.netfilter.org
The best up to date description of bridging I've seen is at
ebtables.sourceforge.net, lots of nice diagrams showing the interaction of
the bridge-nf code, ebtables and iptables - see doc ebtables/iptables
interaction on Linux based bridg
* alexandru matei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 1/ using default outbound shaping on eth1 (outside interface) for
> outgoing and outbound shaping on eth0 (inside interface) for incoming
> 2/ using default outbound shaping on eth1 (outside interface) for
> outgoing and inbound shaping (with IMQ) on eth
> Message: 11
> Subject: RE: [LARTC] bandwidth limiting incoming data
> From: K S Sreeram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: 24 Jun 2003 09:18:18 +0530
>
> On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 22:05, S Mohan wrote:
> > Let us say eth0 is connected the Internet and eth1 to the local LAN. Then
> >
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Trevor Warren wrote:
>
> Can some one please confirm which would be the best place to clarify
> these U32 issues and 2048 U32 filter limitations as i had posted in my
> previous mail.
>
> Trevor
We have 5 filters and still working.
I don't think there is a limit.
>
> --
Yes.. But what about fairness ??
Olivier.
-Message d'origine-
De : Trevor Warren [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : vendredi 20 juin 2003 10:06
À : Olivier DOURNAUX (DSI NOISIEL)
Cc : lartc
Objet : Re: [LARTC] Paquet pading problem using HTB+SFQ
Try removing the SFQ.
Trevor
On Fri,
Can some one please confirm which would be the best place to clarify
these U32 issues and 2048 U32 filter limitations as i had posted in my
previous mail.
Trevor
--
( >-GNU/LINUX, It's all about CHOICE -< )
/~\__[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ /~\
| \) / Pre Sales Consultant
Hi,
try to change tc bin (from htb home pages).
Olivier.
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : mardi 24 juin 2003 11:01
À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : [LARTC] FW: Weird! HTB does not work with my new box..
Folks,
I tried to implemented HTB in Sl
> Unknown qdisc "htb", hence option "default" is unparsable
> **HTB: failed to set root qdisc on eth0!
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc/sysconfig/htb# lsmod
> Module Size Used byNot tainted
> sch_htb21120 0 (unused)
> cls_route 5560 0 (unused)
> cls
Hello all,
I have a simple question. Assuming a gateway has two interfaces (eth0 in
local network and eth1 in outside network), for traffic
controlling/shaping in two directions (inbound&outbound) using a this
(dedicated) gateway which is the best strategy:
1/ using default outbound shaping on
Folks,
I tried to implemented HTB in Slackware Linux 9.0
this is what happened:
Unknown qdisc "htb", hence option "default" is unparsable
**HTB: failed to set root qdisc on eth0!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc/sysconfig/htb# lsmod
Module Size Used byNot tainted
sch_htb
The CBFQ algorithm appears to be patented, looks like US Patent 6,047,000.
Does anyone know how this fits in with the GPL?
Andrew
-Original Message-
From: Cheng Kwok Wing, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 9:44 AM
To: LARTC
Subject: [LARTC] A new classful qdisc
15 matches
Mail list logo
