TC Protocols was RE: [LARTC] RE: IFB setup was no subject

>Try protocol 8021q or whatever its number is - Thanks Andy, this did the trick. And now for the next question. 802.1q is protocol number 0x8100. Therefore my filter lines look like this: Tc filter add dev eth3 parent : protocol 0x8100 prio 10 u32 match u32 0 0 flowid 1:1 action mirred e

[LARTC] Please Help: applying multiple different delays with netem

I'm trying to use tc and netem to delay packets from several different machines as they exit via eth0. Assume two source IPs, 10.0.0.122 and 10.0.0.133. I'd like to delay packets from the first one by 200ms, and packets from the second one by 300 ms. Any other traffic should be sent out normally.

Re: [LARTC] Problem attaching htb class to a htb qdisc

Ruben Porras wrote: I'm trying to build a QoS system that would divide the outgoing traffic into four categories, each one also subdivided into two more categories. For that I chose a htb root qdisc subdivided into four classes, each of these classes contains also a htb qdisc. Until these point e

Re: [LARTC] Divide bandwidth between 4 groups of ip with the same rate

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your bandwidth is likely to have overheads so you can't go too close to ISP quoted numbers. There are ways to make it more accurate for dsl, but you'll need to patch kernel/tc. When shaping ingress traffic you have to sacrifice bandwidth or you will not build up a qu

Re: [LARTC] Fairness queuing across a range of IP addresses

Oscar Mechanic wrote: On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 20:09 +0100, Ales Klok wrote: Derek Sims wrote: I have a block of IP addresses (2048) used for ADSL connections to customers. In order to provide a fair slice of available bandwidth on the contended services I would like to be able to set up some k

Re: [LARTC] traffic shaping with NAT: IFB as IMQ replacement?

Here's what Jamal said for those only on LARTC ... I understand this requirement; unfortunately when i polled for features majority of people who emailed back were asking for the other things. I have changed my opinion a little since last time because the netfilter/contracking code now does netli

Re: [LARTC] RE: IFB setup was no subject

Leigh Sharpe wrote: Nup. Well, not directly. This is going on our backbone, so I'm not taking traffic straight off the wireless. Ultimately, it will be delivered to a customer over a wireless link, but there's lots of ethernet between the QOS box and the wireless. By the way, wireless != 802.11

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper and dmzs

On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 12:16:20 -0400, seph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Can I do this with tc, or is the entire interface shaped? It seems > like I might be able to create a more explicate filter, but I'm having > trouble getting it to work. You can filter on the destination ip address. ___

[LARTC] wondershaper and dmzs

I have a pretty simple setup. I've got a linux nat box, with some internal hosts. I've also got some servers in a dmz. It looks something like this: Internet | (external network) | | | |

[LARTC] traffic shaping with NAT: IFB as IMQ replacement?

Hello, Sorry for the many Ccs, but I hope to reach all parties involved. I want to do traffic shaping with NAT and I wanted to do it with IFB instead of IMQ [1]. I tried a lot of things but now I am stuck (and maybe confused). The setup: eth0 eth1 WAN/(Internet) <-> Lin