[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IMQ / new Dummy device post.

To: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: IMQ / new Dummy device post.
From: Andy Furniss <andy.furniss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:35:01 +0100
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1082031313.1039.13.camel@jzny.localdomain>
References: <> <1082031313.1039.13.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212
jamal wrote:
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 05:42, Andy Furniss wrote:

The only reason I use IMQ (+ NAT patch) is that I need to shape ingress (I know I can't shape it "properly" from the wrong end of the bottleneck without an intelligent app, but the ingress policer does not let me share local and forwarded bandwidth and is not fair per user if I just throttle the whole link).

I am not sure if dummy will sort this for me, there may be some other way?

The summary is dummy can do what IMQ used to; it is however not related
to iptables/netfilter.

Basically all I need is something I can use HTB on where the qos ingress box is on this diagram.

Yes you can attach a HTB. Look at the posted example in the previous
email and replace prio with HTB. Not sure i answered your questions.

What I want to know is what state IP packets will be in if I filter/shape with dummy - In my case I would need them to have been demasqued so I can tell the difference between local and to be forwarded ingress traffic.

Ie. where on the KPTD would dummy be - IMQ appears twice and by using the IMQ nat patch I can use the prerouting one to filter/shape the packets after they are denatted.


Again to emphasize: I will send patches only to people interested. People have to ask directly; this is my way of monitoring what is being tested. At some point i will make the latest patches available to everyone.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>