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

[Andy Furniss <andy.furniss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

Andy.