Changed subject to whats being discused ;->
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 16:18, Andy Furniss wrote:
> jamal wrote:
[..]
> 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)
>
What exactly do you use such a scenario for?
> >
> > 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.
>
How many filters? I wont suspect any difference between ingress
and egress.
> > 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.
>
Hey, you want to get started let me know ;-> Thomas and myself plan to
do good documentation on the actions and ematch as they say Real Soon
Now ;->
cheers,
jamal
|