An earlier exchange about someone seeing the rate larger than the
ceiling is posted below. Andy explained the reason for the "above
ceiling" rate in Daniel's output . . . but I just saw an example that
doesn't fit.
>> tc output >>
class htb 1:14 parent 1:1 leaf 14: prio 1 quantum 3072 rate
Jay Vosburgh schrieb:
> Grant Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On 07/31/07 06:01, Ralf Gross wrote:
> >> But I don't have an isolated network. Maybe I'm still too blind to see a
> >> simple solution.
First, thanks for your very detailed reply.
[...]
> >The only other nasty thing that come
I'm using KOM_RSVP
I'm trying to figure out what trigures and RSVP session. When I send
traffic with a certain utility the RSVP PATH, RESV, and CONF message is
sent. How does the Deameon know to setup a connection though? There is
something internal at the client source happening. I just haven
Grant Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 07/31/07 06:01, Ralf Gross wrote:
>> But I don't have an isolated network. Maybe I'm still too blind to see a
>> simple solution.
There really isn't a simple solution, since you're not doing
something simple. It sounds simple to say you want to
At 2007-07-21 05:59:54 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> If I have the time, I'll try out ucarp and post a summary of my
> experiences for the archives.
Not much to report. I set up ucarp as directed in the README, and it
just worked. It was simple and did what I wanted (which was to allow
two m
On 07/31/07 10:31, Ralf Gross wrote:
I've talked to one of the people of the network staff. He meant they
never used CEF in this type of scenario. I'm also not very familiar
with Cicso products.
My physical scenario is a Cisco 3640 router with two (10BaseT) ethernet
connections connected to ex
Grant Taylor schrieb:
> >I think it's not possible with the Cisco switches we use here to
> >increase the bandwidth between 2 hosts on L2.
>
> It sounds like a "per packet" or "per flow" decision that is defaulting
> to "per flow" for deciding which port on an EtherChannel to use.
>
> I'm not t
On 07/31/07 06:01, Ralf Gross wrote:
But I don't have an isolated network. Maybe I'm still too blind to
see a simple solution.
This is why Paul's solution, though accurate, will not work in your
scenario.
The fact that you are trying to go across an aggregated link in the
middle between the
Hello Jonathan,
The scenario works perfectly well on a NAT router. See, you drop excess
of bits on the interface where the packets arrive. Which is before
nating. Maybe we speak about different scenarios here?
What I describe limits the maximum upload speed for ip in the LAN.
Let me know the pack
Hi gurus I want to destroy all state table entries/reset all connections
for a particular client. When I issue conntrack -L -s , it
lists loads of state entries. When I issue conntrack -D -s number> it answers "NFNETLINK answers: No such file or directory
Operation failed: such conntrack doesn't
Hello,
The policer is not 1: but :, not engress(root) but ingress.
Let me give you an example:
tc qdisc add dev eth0 ingress handle :
TC_FILTER="tc filter add dev eth0 parent : protocol ip"
$TC_FILTER prio 2 u32 match ip src 192.168.0.6/32 police rate 32kbit
burst 16kb drop flowid fff
Paul Zirnik schrieb:
> > > On Monday 30 July 2007 16:10, Ralf Gross wrote:
> > > > My goal is to increase the bandwidth for a single tcp session between
> > > > the two hosts for a backup job (per packet round robin?), not for
> > > > multiple connections between many hosts. I know that I won't get
Hi Nikolay,
How might this be implemented? I have used a shell script that loops
around with a new IP address each time, and then my police line looks
like this:
tc filter add dev $LAN parent 1: protocol ip prio 50 u32 match ip src
137.222.$j.$i police rate ${UPLINK}kbit burst 10k drop flowi
Hello Jonathan,
Indeed. I have tested with limited number of IPs though. Not sure how
that scheme will behave if you apply it to a huge network.
Cheers,
-Nikolay
Jonathan Gazeley wrote:
> Hi Nikolay,
>
> Thanks for your help - this looks useful. Is it possible to apply a
> police filter invidiua
Hi Nikolay,
Thanks for your help - this looks useful. Is it possible to apply a
police filter invidiually to each IP behind the NAT?
Thanks,
Jonathan
Nikolay Kichukov wrote:
Hello,
You need to recompile your kernel and include the appropriate modules
for htb to work.
The other idea I have i
Paul Zirnik schrieb:
> This is why i sayed you need two different switches. With only one the switch
> will allways send only to one port, because he knows the MAC address
> and will not balance traffic on two or more ports with the same MAC address
> as destination. Etherchannel has no balancing
Hello,
You need to recompile your kernel and include the appropriate modules
for htb to work.
The other idea I have is to use policer to filter how much traffic PCs
in the LAN upload. This is done on the LAN interface. Eliminates the
need to mark packets, etc.
You just drop all the packets that a
On Monday 30 July 2007 22:48, Ralf Gross wrote:
> Paul Zirnik schrieb:
> > On Monday 30 July 2007 16:10, Ralf Gross wrote:
> > > My goal is to increase the bandwidth for a single tcp session between
> > > the two hosts for a backup job (per packet round robin?), not for
> > > multiple connections b
18 matches
Mail list logo
