[Top] [All Lists]

Re: iptables breakage WAS(Re: dummy as IMQ replacement

To: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: iptables breakage WAS(Re: dummy as IMQ replacement
From: Andy Furniss <andy.furniss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:18:36 +0000
Cc: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>, Remus <rmocius@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Nguyen Dinh Nam <nguyendinhnam@xxxxxxxxx>, Andre Tomt <andre@xxxxxxxx>,, Damion de Soto <damion@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1111781443.1092.631.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1107123123.8021.80.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1110453757.1108.87.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <423B7BCB.10400@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111410890.1092.195.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <423F41AD.3010902@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111444869.1072.51.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <423F71C2.8040802@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111462263.1109.6.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <42408998.5000202@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111550254.1089.21.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4241C478.5030309@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111607112.1072.48.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4241D764.2030306@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111612042.1072.53.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4241F1D2.9050202@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4241F7F0.2010403@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111625608.1037.16.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <424212F7.10106@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111663947.1037.24.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111665450.1037.27.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4242DFB5.9040802@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111749220.1092.457.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <42446DB2.9070809@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111781443.1092.631.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8b) Gecko/20050217
jamal wrote:

Things will work once the  "action track" is in place; i.e you would
then say:
"match xxx .. \
 action track \
 action connmark"

OK I would need that to recreate what I do now with IMQ hooked after deNAT so I can see local addresses and use connbytes in prerouting mangle (though that's on my 2.4 I can't get connbytes to work with latest netfilter yet anyway)

If i was to prioritize my time for new actions - how important is this?

Things are OK for me with IMQ - low bandwidth and not many filters seem fine. At high bandwidth/lots of filters it seems problematic - but then most people can use dummy now :-)

I'll have to re-run a test I did recently which was lots of tc filter matches at 8000pps - on egress IMQ was almost as good as directly on eth0. On ingress it was more than 10X worse.

I also wish someone else would start writting some of these actions ;->
Wanna right the tracking one? I could help - wink.

LOL - you'd probably end up writing it all anyway.

I really should try and get into coding more though, apart from a few small hacks I have had no practice with C/kernel stuff.


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