Thanks Damion,
I would like to re-confirm the last few days discussion.
--
Private | eth1 eth0 |---Internet
ipaddresses ||
--
Linux firewall
1. For shaping the incomming and outgoing traffic
Steffen Moser and Raghuveer wrote:
SM> If I then want to shape the traffic I send to the "ppp0" interface,
SM> which bandwidth would be used for setting up a CBQ?
SM>
SM> I suppose that here the "virtual" (e.g. limited by the ISP) bandwidth
SM> of my "ppp0" connection (e.g. 128 kbit/s) is the inte
See the attached file for details
Please see the attached file for details.
On Tuesday 19 August 2003 21:09, Vlad Mihai wrote:
> Is there a way to separate Downloads from websites (on port 80) from
> browsing? They all come on port 80 and I want to prioritize the browsing...
That's not so easy. You can try to do filtering on packet contents (layer 7)
and use the http hea
On Tuesday 19 August 2003 21:13, Vlad Mihai wrote:
> I have a tc script which splits the bandwidth in 8 leaf classes based on
> IP filtering.
> The script looks like this:
>
> tc filter add dev $LAN_IFACE protocol ip parent 1:0 prio 1 u32 match ip
> dst 192.168.0.121 flowid 1:11
>
>
> The separatio
I have a tc script which splits the bandwidth in 8 leaf classes based on
IP filtering.
The script looks like this:
tc filter add dev $LAN_IFACE protocol ip parent 1:0 prio 1 u32 match ip
dst 192.168.0.121 flowid 1:11
The separation works excellent for downloads, but for uploads, it is
ignored...
Is there a way to separate Downloads from websites (on port 80) from browsing?
They all come on port 80 and I want to prioritize the browsing...
Can this be achieved? If you would be so kind to give me a sample script or a link, it
would be great ☺
Thanking you in advance,
Mihai Vlad
_
Hi,
Thanks for the reply.
yes and sorry I forgot to mention that it is about load sharing of routing and not webserver.
If I use same MAC addresses, then it will be a problem when there is a connection between switches. (that's why linux-bonding driver does not help in this case as it forces to
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:33:47AM +0100, Ojasi wrote:
> I have some questions regarding load-sharing in the following scenario.
>
> LAN1
> | | |
>
Hello,
I have some questions regarding load-sharing in the following scenario.
LAN1
| | |
eth0 eth0
Damion de Soto wrote:
Raghuveer wrote:
I feel it gets the interface bandwidth.
yes, it does.
you need the interface bandwidth for the cbq qdisc:
http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.qdisc.classful.html#AEN935
How can I get the actual/real interface bandwidth, for ex: bandwidth
provided by my ISP is 512k
Hi Damion,
* On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 09:41 AM (+1000), Damion de Soto wrote:
> Raghuveer wrote:
>
> >I feel it gets the interface bandwidth.
>
> yes, it does.
> you need the interface bandwidth for the cbq qdisc:
> http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.qdisc.classful.html#AEN935
Given a 10 Mbit/s ethern
> Hi Thanks for your reply.One question - The lartc documentation says -
> that in a NATed environment you should mark packets in the PREROUTING
stage
> while you have done in FORWARD stage - is that ok ?
I did this on purpose because you can check for incoming and outgoing
interface here (-i and
Hi Martin,
Thanks for such a clear explanation.
Now if I take scenario where I use IMQ with HTB for shaping outgoing and
incomming traffic both, will it be as follows...?
Outgoing:--
LAN interface->NATwith
<--set-mark>option(wan)->IMQ+HTB(wan)-->Internet
Incomming
Hello,
I live in Romania where Internet is quite expensive for kids like me.
We have managed to buy a 8/128 kbit (kilo bit) not kbps (kilo bytes).
It means that my ISP guarantees that the traffic won’t fall below 8kbit and can
achieve 128kbit.
I have a "SlackWare" Linux box that is used for NA
Am Fre, 2003-08-15 um 21.07 schrieb Osgaldo Suanzes:
> Im a bit confused here, and would appreciate any help.
Hi,
I have started an IPsec Howto covering Linux 2.6 and the KAME tools
(setkey/racoon) and isakmpd.
You will find it at:
http://www.ipsec-howto.org
Feedback is welco
17 matches
Mail list logo
