netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: dummy as IMQ replacement

To: Hasso Tepper <hasso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: dummy as IMQ replacement
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 31 Jan 2005 07:47:53 -0500
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Nguyen Dinh Nam <nguyendinhnam@xxxxxxxxx>, Remus <rmocius@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andre Tomt <andre@xxxxxxxx>, syrius.ml@xxxxxxxxxx, Andy Furniss <andy.furniss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Damion de Soto <damion@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <200501311438.01118.hasso@estpak.ee>
Organization: jamalopolous
References: <1107123123.8021.80.camel@jzny.localdomain> <200501311020.08337.hasso@estpak.ee> <1107174338.8021.123.camel@jzny.localdomain> <200501311438.01118.hasso@estpak.ee>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 07:38, Hasso Tepper wrote:
> jamal wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 03:20, Hasso Tepper wrote:
> > > Policing didn't work with IPv6 last time I checked.
> >
> > Really? I take it this is using the u32 classifier?
> > What filter did you use?
> 
> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc/2004q2/012422.html
> 
> Got one answer to this in private that "AFAIK it isn't implemented yet".

This?

tc filter add dev eth1.101 parent ffff: protocol all prio 50 handle \
0x101 fw police rate 1024kbit burst 60k drop flowid :101

What are you trying to do? Are you also trying to rate limit ARPs etc
in one shot?

Does this even get hit at all? tc -s would show you stats. I suspect
for one it is not being hit.
Maybe you are trying to use iptables marks that happen
a long time after the ingress has seen the packets (which would 
explain why it is not being hit)? This would be true kernels > 2.6.8 
but not before ..
In other words, it may be a config issue.
If you tell me what it is you are trying to do i could try and set it
up when i come back from work today.

cheers,
jamal


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