On Tuesday 22 June 2004 06:00, Ed Wildgoose wrote:
> Your upstream will be 256Kbits of ATM bandwidth. This consists of 53
> byte packets with 48 bytes of data. So you already only have 256 *
> 48/53 of real bandwidth. We then have to take off PPP headers and PPPoE
> headers.
> We are obviousl
e success using Andreas' HTB + PRIO per-user configuration
which I adapted to my own purposes. I found it to be slightly snappier than
assigning a bunch of HTB children per parent. I also stuck p2p traffic in a
fourth bucket, as he did. Works nice. :)
> Andreas
--
Jason Boxman
Perl Program
ur own time,
> generates more than 3(The TCP limit for 'giving up') * 7(The number of
> connectios) of these droped/missing packets that every connection gives
> up.
"read about this on your own time"
If you're not going to explain the situation who do you
guaranteed 256 by my ISP anyway.
218 packets transmitted, 218 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 11.5/41.3/70.6 ms
I have attached a unified `diff` with both the HTB `tc` patch and Ed
Wildgoose's new PPPoA overhead patch as a unified patch.
--
Jason Boxman
Perl Progr
anagement/monitoring.
>
> I would appreciate any help.
>
> Regards
> Ralf
>
--
Jason Boxman
Perl Programmer / *NIX Systems Administrator
Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing | University of Florida
http://edseek.com/ - Linux and FOSS stuff
__
On Sunday 20 June 2004 09:16, Ed Wildgoose wrote:
> Jason Boxman wrote:
> >On Friday 18 June 2004 07:45, Ed Wildgoose wrote:
> >>OK, here it is. Near perfect bandwidth calculation for ADSL users.
> >>Patch iproute2 with the HTB stuff and then this:
> >
> &g
x27;t applied it which would explain why the
original tc patch did not have any effect for me.
I'm eager to try this out as soon as I have some time.
Thanks for the patch!
--
Jason Boxman
Perl Programmer / *NIX Systems Administrator
Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing | University of Flor
No securityName specified
I used:
snmpwalk -m GNU-LINUX-KERNEL-QOS -v 1 -c public localhost qos
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls .snmp/mibs/
QOS.txt
>
> I'm lost...!!!
>
> Bests
> andres
--
Jason Boxman
Perl Programmer / *NIX Systems Administrator
Shimberg Center for Afforda
On Friday 18 June 2004 07:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have try to compile net-snmp with QoS patch from
> http://x-ray.prokon.cz/data/snmp/ but got error, i have try many times
> but still got the same result.
I have compiled it without any problems. What errors did you receive?
On Thursday 17 June 2004 03:29, Ed Wildgoose wrote:
> Consider:
>
> Internet -> Router -> Eth1 -> br0 -> Eth0 -> local net
>
> Now by applying QOS to eth1 I control outgoing traffic from everywhere.
> By applying QOS to eth0 I control incoming to the localnet (great), but
> NOT to the local bridge
On Wednesday 16 June 2004 11:53, Ed Wildgoose wrote:
> Ed W
>
> P.S. Anyone using this script on 2.6 with a bridge needs to be aware
> that the syntax for "tc" has changed. You can't use "tc -i eth0"
> anymore, you need "tc -i br0 -m physdev --physdev-in eth0". And the
> same for "-o". Hope tha
On Thursday 10 June 2004 16:07, Greg Stark wrote:
> I'm using sfq as well. But I'm wondering if I wouldn't be better off with
> pfifo with a short queue. One of the entries in the HTB faq suggests using
> sfq can make it hard to limit bandwidth precisely because it requires
> enough memory that tc
On Wednesday 09 June 2004 16:09, Greg Stark wrote:
> Sanjay Arora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sorry to interrupt the flow, especially being a newbie, but won´t the
> > sender just retransmit the dropped packets at the same rate?
>
> no.
>
> > I am not so thorogh with TCP/IP, but is there someth
ackets you want to delay are already on their way.
> Hm, I wonder if I want RED or something similar to ensure packets get
> dropped fast enough instead of filling HTB queues and then dropping.
If you're curious about RED, here's a possible example implementation for
ingress po
On Tuesday 08 June 2004 15:15, Walter Wickersham wrote:
> Greetings, I've searched, found ftwall, and some other commercial
> solutions, but am wondering if anyone on this list has any solutions using
> a linux firewall to block p2p traffic, more specifically Kazaa.
Yes.
If you're using a 2.4.x s
On Tuesday 08 June 2004 14:35, Greg Stark wrote:
> [I sent this earlier but I guess the list is subscriber-only?]
>
> I just set up wondershaper, it has a simple filter on the downstream
> direction to limit the bandwidth usage:
>
> tc qdisc add dev $DEV handle : ingress
> tc filter add dev $DE
parent 2:4 handle 40: tbf rate 152kbit buffer 1600 limit
3000
Afterwards, `tc` always hangs. Even `ifconfig` hangs. The box has to be
toggled manually to bring it back.
Thoughts anyone?
Thanks.
--
Jason Boxman
Perl Programmer / *NIX Systems Administrator
Shimberg Center for Affordable Ho
On Thursday 03 June 2004 07:30, John B Dunning/NS/WSC wrote:
> Greetings all,
>
> the mangle table because normally it would make no sense. Would it be
> possible to modify iptables to allow -o device in the PREROUTING list if
> the device type is IMQ??
If it is, you'd have to ask the Netfilter
On Friday 28 May 2004 14:54, Andy Furniss wrote:
> Reading your other post I see your small traffic is ~100b - this would
> use three cells, so as a temporary kludge you could set your mpu to 159
> and see how it goes.
>
> AFAIK the author of the HTB patch is looking into modifying it to do the
>
class, which will be whatever you
define. I believe it only works in the POSTROUTING chain, however.
> So am I totally on the wrong track here? Or am I on the right track but
> just needing some tweaks to my script?
>
> Thanks to anyone who can help - I need it!
Enjoy.
--
Jason Bo
On Friday 14 May 2004 03:05, Ed Wildgoose wrote:
> I appears that you could change the patch in tc/core in fn
> tc_calc_rtable, from:
>
> + if (overhead)
> + sz += overhead;
>
> to something like:
>
> + if (overhead)
> + sz += (((sz-1)/mpu)+1) * overhead;
I did that and recompiled
On Monday 24 May 2004 10:24, Andreas Klauer wrote:
> > or perhaps even an snmp module that
> > would present them as interfaces to be polled
>
> I don't use snmp myself, but I think Jason Boxman (in #lartc on oftc.net)
> does some kind of monitoring that way. Mayb
tion.
From the comments in sch_htb.c I take it I just traded speed for accuracy in
some of HTB's calculations, which on such a slow link is probably not an
issue?
> Andy.
Thanks!
--
Jason Boxman
Perl Programmer / *NIX Systems Administrator
Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing | Uni
On Tuesday 18 May 2004 17:41, Jan Wilson wrote:
> I promise there will be a link to a well-documented Perl script when I
> get something working. :-) Even if it is a static arrangement, I
> want to set it up with a script that can be adjusted easily when we
> have new customers, MAC address chan
On Monday 17 May 2004 17:23, Ed Wildgoose wrote:
> Read the follows to that post as well. Basically it's only an
> approximation. The "MPU" is basically pointing out that your ADSL
> stream is encapsulated in an ATM stream. ATM uses fixed size 64 byte
> packets. You need at least 2 of these, h
It seems Andreas Klauer's fairnat has experimental support for using HTB's MPU
and overhead options.
fairnat.config:
# Use MPU for HTB. From the LARTC Howto on MPU:
# "A zero-sized packet does not use zero bandwidth. For ethernet, no packet
# uses less than 64 bytes. The Minimum Packet Unit det
ours?
My upstream is supposedly 256Kbps. I am running the ADSL modem in
pass-through mode, so it gives my Linux router the live IP. When I did PPPoE
internally I had an MTU of 1492 and used the RP PPPoE daemon.
> Andy.
>
--
Jason Boxman
Perl Programmer / *NIX Systems Administrator
On Friday 14 May 2004 16:57, Andreas Klauer wrote:
> > rebecca:~# cat /etc/l7-protocols/edonkey.pat
> > ...
> > ^[\xe3\xc5\xe5\xd4].?.?.?.? \
> > ([\x01\x02\x05\x14\x15\x16\x18\x19\x1a\x1b\x1c\x20\x21\x32\x33\x34 \
> > \x35\x46\x38\x40\x41\x42\x43\x46\x47\x48\x49\x4a\x4b\x4c\x4d\x4e\x4f \
> > \x50
On Friday 14 May 2004 13:26, Andreas Klauer wrote:
> Am Friday 14 May 2004 17:18 schrieb GoMi:
> > I am network administrator for my university dorm. We are about 300
> > users, and we have 2 ADSL connections doing load balancing with 300kbits
> > upstream and 2Mbit downstream.
>
> That's not much
On Thursday 13 May 2004 13:28, Andreas Klauer wrote:
> Am Thursday 13 May 2004 16:38 schrieb Andreas Klauer:
> > Am Thursday 13 May 2004 15:54 schrieb Andy Furniss:
> > > I've just noticed that there is a patch on devik's site which does mpu
> > > and overhead.
> >
> > I'll give it a try. Thanks fo
On Thursday 13 May 2004 14:59, Lars Oeschey wrote:
> Andreas Klauer wrote:
> >The modified wondershaper is here:
> >http://www.metamorpher.de/files/wshaper-over-lan.htb
>
> I tested the script now, it works good so far in that LAN traffic isn't
> slowed down anymore . But when p2p has full Band
On Thursday 13 May 2004 06:34, calin popa wrote:
> Hi, my name is Calin and I'm new to linux, but I guess its the right place
> to ask this:
>
> what do I set on a linux RH9 box with 2.4.24 kernel to route a 10 machine
> private network (192.168.x.x) by 3 limited bandwidth, public IPs
> (193.231.
the wshaper script,
> did I do something wrong?
Something I've found with mldonkey, if you're running with Overnet enabled, is
it likes to use tons of ports, so simply specifying 4662 for the Edonkey
network itself won't catch any of your Overnet traffic. I'm looki
decide to use IMQ you might use it
in both directions.
> Sorry, this is *my* brain-dead-pseudo-code to explain, what I want, with a
> syntax associated to the tcc(tcng) examples I have found on the net.
>
> Could someone *now* show me, how my goal should look in tcng syntax?
I don&
On Friday 16 April 2004 17:07, Jason Boxman wrote:
> I can't seem to match packets less than 512 bytes:
>
> class( <$bulk> )
> if tcp_dport == 81 && !( ip_len & 0xfe00 )
> ;
> or
> if tcp_dport == 81 && ip_len < 512
Reversing the rule such
I can't seem to match packets less than 512 bytes:
class( <$bulk> )
if tcp_dport == 81 && !( ip_len & 0xfe00 )
;
or
if tcp_dport == 81 && ip_len < 512
Both rules match any packet I send to port 81, even when the total IP length
is much greater than 512 bytes:
class htb 2:4 parent 2:1 leaf 5:
On Tuesday 13 April 2004 16:13, segun adesina wrote:
> Hi, good people!
>
> I wanted to limit my 4 customers to 144, 16, 32, and
> 32kbps.
> I used the following tc commands BUT IT FAILED TO
> LIMIT each and everyone of them to its bandwidth.
> What am I doing wrong:
>
> My tc scripts are:
>
> tc
On Tuesday 06 April 2004 17:29, Jason Boxman wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 April 2004 05:17, Martin A. Brown wrote:
>
>
> > If you are just starting out with traffic control under Linux, I strongly
> > recommend learning and using tcng from the beginning. The control
> &g
On Tuesday 06 April 2004 05:17, Martin A. Brown wrote:
> If you are just starting out with traffic control under Linux, I strongly
> recommend learning and using tcng from the beginning. The control
> language offered by tcng (although technical) is much more like English or
> human language than
and uplink qdiscs, hide errors
tc qdisc del dev $DEV root2> /dev/null > /dev/null
tc qdisc del dev $DEV ingress 2> /dev/null > /dev/null
> If I want it to return to the default for example??
>
> Thanks
>
> Chris
--
Jason Boxman
Perl Programmer / *NIX Systems
On Wednesday 24 March 2004 21:47, Jason Boxman wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Does anyone know how to create a rule using tcng that functions like this
> iptables rule?
>
> class( <$ack> )
> if ip_hl == 0x5 &&
> (ip_len & 0xffc0) &&
> (raw[33].b >>
a
length constraint:
class( <$ack> )
if ip_hl == 0x5 &&
(ip_len & 0xffc0) &&
(raw[33].b >> 4) & 1;
Thanks!
--
Jason Boxman
Perl Programmer / *NIX Systems Administrator
Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing | University of Florida
http:
tch u8 0x10 0x10 at 13 classid 1:1
tc filter add dev eth0 parent 1:0 protocol all prio 1 u32 match u8 0x6 0xff at
9 match u8 0x5 0xf at 0 classid 1:2
tc filter add dev eth0 parent 1:0 protocol all prio 1 u32 match u32 0x0 0x0 at
0 classid 1:2
Thanks in advance!
--
Jason Boxman
Perl Programmer /
101 - 143 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
