Hi,
Can anyone point me out where the script below is wrong?
All I want is that host 172.31.1.1 can only use 10 megabit. If I run
this script on the in-between router nothing happens (the host uses
still the full 100 mbit, tested with iperf) , so i assume that something
must be wrong
Hello,
Should route -C show the RTCF_REDIRECTED flag ? (0x0004). I had
searched in the code and it seems that it should show this flag by r.
However, I could not show this flag by route -c even that it
should have been there.
I have the following scenario where I have this flag
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 13:47 +0200, Joost Kraaijeveld wrote:
Hi,
Can anyone point me out where the script below is wrong?
Maybee, I'm new to this stuff and having trouble getting some things to
work myself. :S
All I want is that host 172.31.1.1 can only use 10 megabit. If I run
this script
Hi Mark,
After changing the script in this way it seems to work (MI think that
this is what you mend with attaching the filter to the root qdisk):
# downlink
tc qdisc del dev eth0 root
tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1: htb
tc class add dev eth0 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 100mbit
tc
Hey,
# uplink
tc qdisc del dev eth1 root
tc qdisc add dev eth1 root handle 1: htb
tc class add dev eth1 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 100mbit
tc class add dev eth1 parent 1:1 classid 1:2 htb rate 1mbit ceil
10mbit tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1: protocol ip prio 1 u32 match
ip src
Stas Oskin wrote:
Hi.
I'm using the following filter from lartc ultimate PPP example:
tc filter add dev $DEV parent : protocol ip prio 50 u32 match ip src \
0.0.0.0/0 police rate ${DOWNLINK}kbit burst 10k drop flowid :1
It works fine, but when I remove the burst 10k, I receive the
Tim Enos wrote:
Cool,
Thanks Christian! I'm wishing that all of those same params showed up in the
output without having to run anything. No problem. Should it matter that I'm
using an emulated interface?
Quite possibly - using prio on real devices still can appear not to work
until you have
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 05:54:46PM -0500, Greg Scott wrote:
Hi -
Still plugging away at my Linux bridge/firewall and thinking through the
consequences. In a normal firewall situation, the Internet is on one
side, the internal LAN on the other. Duh! But now, with a Linux bridge
in the
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 06:35:46PM -0500, Greg Scott wrote:
out of curiosity why would you want to bridge at the firewall. is
this meant to be a drop in-line firewall appliance
Long story but yes, it is essentially a drop in-line system. It's a
mess.
So will that Internet router
