[LARTC] simple question
Hello everybody, I'm trying to set up netem on a SuSE box (kernel 2.6.16), but I'm having some weird problems, considering that on my Gentoo laptop (kernel 2.6.17) it worked fine. If I write: # tc qdisc add dev eth0 root netem delay 20ms loss 20% and then try pinging another machine over eth0, I get a 24ms delay but no packet loss (while on my laptop I get 21ms and a correct packet loss). But what I'm sure you'll be able to clarify is this: what's wrong with this command: # tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1: netem delay 20ms # tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:1 handle 10: netem loss 20% That is what phpnetemgui tries to do, and as far as I read it should be the same as the previous command, but in both the box and my laptop I get only the packet loss... Can anyone help me? Thanks in advance. Ferdinando ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] Simple question... where to find last stable version of HTB
EC wrote: > > Hi, > > New to traffic shaping I would like to make some tests. It's for a > production server (fw), using 2.4.27 kernel. > > Something is not clear to me about HTB... is the last stable version > included in the 2.4.27 kernel and iproute2 (iproute2-2.6.8-040823.tar.bz2) ? > Are there special patches to apply ? Use this to test the kernel: grep "changes from state" /user/src/linux/net/sched/sch_htb.c If it isn't there, then 2.4.27 does not include the latest. Should it be the case that 2.4.27 doesn't include this text, you should post that here for posterity. You DID google "2.4.27 LARTC", didn't you?!! The most recent stable iproute2 is 2.6.9 so yours should be fine; it is the one I use. You MUST compile your own kernel after setting PSCHED_CPU in linux/include/net/pkt_sched.h so patching HTb if needed is No Big Deal. If your tc returns error messages for things that should work, use the binary from Devik's site. ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
RE: [LARTC] Simple question... where to find last stable version of HTB
>> Hi, >> >> New to traffic shaping I would like to make some tests. It's for a >> production server (fw), using 2.4.27 kernel. >> >> Something is not clear to me about HTB... is the last stable version >> included in the 2.4.27 kernel and iproute2 (iproute2-2.6.8- >040823.tar.bz2) ? >> Are there special patches to apply ? >> >> EC. > >You have all you need to go. >Post your script and your problems. OK. Actually, I do not have any trouble (some tests done with TBF/SFQ and CBQ). However, since I intend using HTB and as some people talk about 2.4.27 kernel problems with it.. I was wondering before diving in ... :) Will probably use wonder shaper for first tests. Thx ! EC. ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
[LARTC] Simple question... where to find last stable version of HTB
Hi, New to traffic shaping I would like to make some tests. It's for a production server (fw), using 2.4.27 kernel. Something is not clear to me about HTB... is the last stable version included in the 2.4.27 kernel and iproute2 (iproute2-2.6.8-040823.tar.bz2) ? Are there special patches to apply ? EC. ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] Simple question
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 30 September 2002 01:07 am, Joseph Watson wrote: > Hello, > Sorry I have the wrong list here :) - -- Regards Joseph Watson -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9l92+ABydhMNsDgMRAp1vAJ9wUqtPWCqXGOqVN2hu+dJtX+oKFQCgkBub 7DK5G7KEIqa3EwkbZUeiIXc= =HiAH -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
[LARTC] Simple question
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, I have a linuxbox running shorewall, and on the lan side nic I have multiple networks, and ip's from both assigned to the nic. One network is private, and the other is public ip's. I have a web server running on the firewall with multiple virtual hosts configured. I have the private ip on the lan tied to the default apache config, and the public ip on the lan tied to a vurtual configuration. Also the public ip on the wan is tied to another virtual host. I want all web traffic on the private network that is trying to go through the firewall to get forwarded to the firewall and be answered by the apache default config. All this config will do is redirects the request to my domain. So no matter where they try to go, they will end up at my page. The following will do the trick. ACCEPT lan:192.168.1.0/24fw:192.168.1.1:80 tcp http - all I think it is required to specify the 192.168.1.1 on the firewall so it is answered by the proper apache config. Am I right? The 192.168.1.1 is the main ip on the nic, and the public ip is a alias. Then came the question, will the following rule do the same thing? ACCEPT lan:192.168.1.0/24lan:192.168.1.1:80 tcp http - all Would this act any different? - -- Regards Joseph Watson -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9l9v5ABydhMNsDgMRAqX/AJ49x9j4fK4eVuwfQJMxA15YWKdHoACgzhKv mGExxcT5A/DK6prz2L1yBog= =z1pS -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] simple question
As you can confirm in your own draw that you shown us, you have different nets . You need : 1.- A static route to ROUTER 10.0.0.254 from de LAN 209 or 2.- Configure some routing protocols like RIP with Zebra suite. These configurations tipe are the same as Cisco routers, for any configurations problem you can look at www.cisco.com and search "configuring RIP" for example Best Regards LievenX -.-.LievenX..--. - Mensaje Original - De: "Jason C. Leach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fecha: Jueves, Septiembre 26, 2002 4:47 am Asunto: [LARTC] simple question > hi, > > So I have the following: > > ROUTER 10.0.0.254 > | > 10.0.0.3(eth0) > MY_DEBIAN_RTR > 209.52.x.126(eth1) > | > LAN (the 209.52.x.64/26 subnet) > > > I need to route the 209.52.x.64 subnet through MY_DEBIAN_RTR > and on to the telephone company router. I'd probably like > 209.52.x to have it's own table (if that is a good idea). > The debian box will eventually do some firewalling, and some > traffic monitoring. But first I have to get the traffic flowing. > > I have read some docs, and the HOTO, but they were not too > much help. > > Thanks, > j. > > > > -- > .. > . Jason C. Leach > .. > > Current PGP/GPG Key ID: 43AD2024 > ___ > LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ > ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
[LARTC] simple question
hi, So I have the following: ROUTER 10.0.0.254 | 10.0.0.3(eth0) MY_DEBIAN_RTR 209.52.x.126(eth1) | LAN (the 209.52.x.64/26 subnet) I need to route the 209.52.x.64 subnet through MY_DEBIAN_RTR and on to the telephone company router. I'd probably like 209.52.x to have it's own table (if that is a good idea). The debian box will eventually do some firewalling, and some traffic monitoring. But first I have to get the traffic flowing. I have read some docs, and the HOTO, but they were not too much help. Thanks, j. -- .. . Jason C. Leach .. Current PGP/GPG Key ID: 43AD2024 ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] simple question
pfifo is attached if not other specified. if no qdisc is attached to an interface at all pfifo_fast will be used. bye patrick Mihai RUSU wrote: > Hi > > If not ataching any qdisc disc to a cba/htb leaf class what does that > mean? There will be a default fifo style queue ? Or there will be no queue > at all on the leaf class? > > Also if deleting any existing qdisc on a device (tc qdisc del dev eth0 > root) what it will happen with the packets destined to go out on that > interface? > > My tests show that the packets still go out only that I am not sure if > there is any queue on that device. > > Thanks > > > Mihai RUSU > > Disclaimer: Any views or opinions presented within this e-mail are solely > those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of any company, > unless otherwise specifically stated. > > ___ > LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
[LARTC] simple question
Hi If not ataching any qdisc disc to a cba/htb leaf class what does that mean? There will be a default fifo style queue ? Or there will be no queue at all on the leaf class? Also if deleting any existing qdisc on a device (tc qdisc del dev eth0 root) what it will happen with the packets destined to go out on that interface? My tests show that the packets still go out only that I am not sure if there is any queue on that device. Thanks Mihai RUSU Disclaimer: Any views or opinions presented within this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of any company, unless otherwise specifically stated. ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
