Yesterday I posted a patch on the netdev list but it
occurred to me that folks here might have more to say
about the proposed feature (and a stake in it since
it would add syntax to iproute)
http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg49450.html
Comments very welcome.
of the package.
I've already searched google for a websie like this but i haven't
found anything so I ask here.
Why not just download a tarball, make tags and used tagged editing?
b.
--
My other computer is your Microsoft Windows server.
Brian J. Murrell
signature.asc
Description
/listinfo/lartc
--
My other computer is your Microsoft Windows server.
Brian J. Murrell
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
the reverse path. Is this true?
Thanx,
b.
--
My other computer is your Microsoft Windows server.
Brian J. Murrell
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl
Title: Message
Hi. I have a
Cyclades PC300/TE2 card that turns a Linux PC into a Dual T1 interface router.
It is well made and high performance. I used it for a few years. It includes two
T1 cables. Cyclades has gotten out of this business but the Linux kernel
developer community supports
On Sat, 2005-12-03 at 07:04 +0100, Andreas Klauer wrote:
On Friday 02 December 2005 23:24, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
Yeah, that is what I want, but why do I need HTB?
You need it only if you also want to limit bandwidth somehow.
But surely HTB is overkill for simply limiting bandwidth
it all fairly,
no?
b.
--
My other computer is your Microsoft Windows server.
Brian J. Murrell
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman
fine (even classifying the outgoing ACKs from the
bittorrent download there) while I have classified ping into 2:1 and
it seems to be working there.
b.
--
My other computer is your Microsoft Windows server.
Brian J. Murrell
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Sun, 2005-12-04 at 17:54 +0100, Andreas Klauer wrote:
On Sunday 04 December 2005 17:36, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
Even if they end up in 2:3, they should at least be treated fairly.
2:3 will not be treated at all as long as 2:1 and 2:2 (which have higher
priority) are occupied.
Right. I
is your Microsoft Windows server.
Brian J. Murrell
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
:300 for the 3 bands? or 10:1, 10:2 and 10:3?
Thanx,
b.
--
My other computer is your Microsoft Windows server.
Brian J. Murrell
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http
.
--
My other computer is your Microsoft Windows server.
Brian J. Murrell
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
not just put to the front of the queue in FIFO order? I.e.
appended to the end of the top of the queue (the top band I guess it
is)?
b.
--
My other computer is your Microsoft Windows server.
Brian J. Murrell
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 16:05 +0200, Rafael A Barrero wrote:
Hi guys;
I'm sure you are all bored of hearing the same story over and over...
but here it comes again. :) Yep, tomorrow I'm getting another ADSL
line installed and I wanted my linux router to handle both providers
(new and
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 20:11 +0200, Markus Schulz wrote:
Am Montag, 9. Mai 2005 16:05 schrieb Rafael A Barrero:
Hi guys;
[...]
Here's what I want to know:
1. Does an updated guide exist for multiple providers?
Look at this howto: http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/nano.txt
Indeed, and herein
customer and mark their packets
appropriately. This may be more hassle than its worth, depending on the number
of
customers you have.
Regards
Brian Carrig
On 27 Apr 2005 at 10:35, John Gorkos wrote:
First I'll confess my sins, then I'll beg for help.
I own a small wireless ISP, and I sell
Marcus,
I'm a little confused. Downstream is 1mbit and upstream is 128kbit but the root limit
in your code is 1mbit. Surely this could be the cause of your problem?
Regards
Brian
On 23 Mar 2005 at 14:33, Marcus Fritzsch wrote:
~ 27 # shapiung class of root -- not more than 1mbit
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
--
Brian Carrig
Research Assistant
Department of Computing Networking
Institute of Technology, Carlow
Mobile: +353 86 3867467
___
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http
Cheers Andy, great work.
Brian
On 11 Jan 2005 at 15:28, Andy Furniss wrote:
Justin Schoeman wrote:
Woohoo - that would be great!
-justin
Andy Furniss wrote:
Justin Schoeman wrote:
Ouch... Is there any other way to do host-based fair sharing
(well, other than actually
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 00:12 -0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
Help me please!!!
I am using Linux Redhat as router of the my network. I am to making NAT and
firewall.
In my iptables script, I need make 3 MARKs for the same packet, as following
# It marks the packets that will
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 21:40 -0800, gypsy wrote:
Guessing from the lack of any mention of KeepState
KeepState? If you are referring to:
52459 2774K ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/00.0.0.0/0
state RELATED,ESTABLISHED
rules, I have those sprinkled throughout my
To followup on my own posting, with more information...
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 10:59 -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
I have a very simple setup exactly as described in the HOWTO section
4.2. Routing for multiple uplinks/providers.
One is cable (eth1: dhcp) and the other is PPPoE (ppp0
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 09:39 -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
To followup on my own posting, with more information...
And yet more...
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 10:59 -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
I have a very simple setup exactly as described in the HOWTO section
4.2. Routing for multiple
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 17:17 +0100, diab wrote:
iirc, to have two working internet connections on one (nat'ing)
computer you basically need two things (in my example its eth0 and
eth1)
1) SNAT to the right source address, like
iptables -A POSTROUTING -j nat -t SNAT [-s from.where or -d
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 18:25 +0100, diab wrote:
yes they are conflicting with each other.. i thought that you could
select which connection the packets should be using either based on
the address the packets are coming FROM (-s some.ip.on.the.lan) or
going TO (-d wan.destination.address.).
No.
I have a very simple setup exactly as described in the HOWTO section
4.2. Routing for multiple uplinks/providers.
One is cable (eth1: dhcp) and the other is PPPoE (ppp0).
I used the following commands to configure the routing once all of my
interfaces are up and i have configured SNATing for
their traffic as belonging to Gold/Silver
or
Bronze classes of service. They are then charged appropriately per volume. The
results obtained by this approach thus far are quite satisfactory.
Regards
Brian
On 24 Aug 2004 at 18:47, GoMi wrote:
Hi there guys, i am on my last year of career
You could try adding a rule to each table with a -j LOG target
(logging to standard out). This would allow you to see how the
packet is mangled/handled at each step and what tables it traverses
...
Thats what I usually do when I'm stuck.
Regards
Brian
On 22 Jul 2004 at 17:08, Jens wrote
experiences problems like this or know what might be causing it?
Its very frustrating.
Thanks in advance.
Regards
--
Brian Carrig
Department of Computing Networking
Institute of Technology, Carlow
Tel. No.: +353 59 9176209
___
LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL
I am running kernel 2.6.5, gentoo linux...julian's routes-2.6.4-10
installed
eth0 = local
eth1 = cable modem
eth2 = T1
I am having issues with the machine actually sending packets out over
each hop, it tends to default to eth2, almost never will it use eth1-
I can make a rule to send traffic
I have a linux box with kernel 2.4.22 and iptables 1.2.9
First, i patch linux kernel with Norbet Buckmuller's .diff
#cd \usr\src\linux
#patch -p1 imq-combo-debian-2.4.22.diff
All correct
Second, i -try to- patch iptables (following www.linuximq.net/faq.html)
#cd
I'm confused about what might be going on here, and hope someone will be
able to suggest a way of the thicket for me.
I am using a rule to route a private network to the outside world:
# ip rule show
from 192.168.1.0/24 lookup bc-routes
On the router box I have this rule (public IP obfuscated):
Oops, made a mistake in my example,
I actually enter
ip rule add from 192.168.0.0/24 table John
As soon as I do this, that subnet loses all contact with my firewall, so it can't DHCP
an address,
do DNS servers, ping, anything..
Any clues?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-12-17
Greetings,
If you look at Section 4.1 of the howto, they give asimple example of changing the
default
route for a single IP address by doing the following
# echo 200 John /etc/iproute2/rt_tables
# ip rule add from 10.0.0.10 table John
# ip route add default via 195.96.98.253 dev ppp2 table
will need one at both ends for the
wireless link.
If have read most of the LARTC HOW-TO, but it hasn't sank in totally
(trying to take a drink from a fire hydrant)
Thanks in advance,
--
Brian M. Diehl
Network Admin
A-1 Limousine Inc.
609-919-2019
___
LARTC
I am new to shaping but not to routing; forgive me if this request is
inappropriate for this list.
I am a very small ISP and would like to use HTB to enforce contractual
bandwidth limits on my customers. I am trying to think through one
aspect of this that is vexing me. I'm sure it's no
From: Stef Coene [EMAIL PROTECTED]
;
does it matter that the rate is being reported differently by each
invocation of tc?
I don't know exactly how the rate is calculated, but I don't think you sh=
ould=20
not trust it.
The upload speed of the first runs 252, 258, 254, etc.; on the second
I have been playing with HTB for a couple of weeks on one of my testbed
routers, and was astounded at how accurate it seemed to be (measuring
with iperf).
So I rolled it out on two production machines, and now, Murphy's Law,
those both seem to be throttling too much.
Same hardware, same
I have a question here? why in SuSE 8.0 pro I can slect all the networking
options and none of them are gray out? while under Redhat 7.3 most of them
are? I can't modify the IP:Netfilter Config under Redhat 7.3? ANY IDEA's why
I can't? I am using make xconfig...
You would think?, but you never know. I am loading SuSE 8.0 on the same box
as my Redhat 7.3 box having the problem...hu
-Original Message-
From: Greg Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 8:18 PM
To: Brian; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL
Does any one no how to block ICQ and MSN Instant messenger? I want to
block them using iptables
___
LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
-Original Message-
From: dhaval patel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 3:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [LARTC] Blocking ICQ and MSN Messager
Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Does any one no how to block ICQ and MSN Instant messenger? I want to
block them
I have a iptables firewall version 1.2.5, I LOVE IPTABLES SO MUCH MORE
THINGS YOU CAN DO. I have a small network off my eth0 interface
192.168.0.X network and my ppp0 is my DSL connection, with the current
firewall how would I block someone going to the Internet from my eth0
interface. I have
43 matches
Mail list logo
