Here is my tc config, maybe something is wrong with that config:
/sbin/tc qdisc del dev bond1 root
/sbin/tc qdisc add dev bond1 root handle 1: htb default 1
/sbin/tc class add dev bond1 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 1000mbit burst
1310720
/sbin/tc class add dev bond1 parent 1: classid 1:2
Johan Huysmans wrote:
Here is my tc config, maybe something is wrong with that config:
/sbin/tc qdisc del dev bond1 root
/sbin/tc qdisc add dev bond1 root handle 1: htb default 1
/sbin/tc class add dev bond1 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 1000mbit
burst 1310720
/sbin/tc class add dev
Hi,
ipp2p 0.8.2.-r4 is a Gentoo Linux ebuild which downloads
http://www.ipp2p.org/downloads/ipp2p-0.8.2.tar.gz; and then compiles
the kernel+iptables module from source so I would assume that it is the
version you mention.
Any thoughts on the unaligned access?
Jaime.
Vaidas M wrote:
Where did
But ipp2p does compile with Kernel 2.6.22, only it produces these
"unaligned access" errors for the "search_all_ed2k" class.
Jaime.
Vaidas M wrote:
Hmm I think this is compatibility problem before kernel and ipp2p
As I remember original ipp2p doesn't compiles with 2.6.22, maybe r4
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I believe fighting is the wrong approach. Badly shaping the wrong
traffic is just as bad, if not worse IMO. An ISP in my neck of the
woods plays havoc with encrypted mail (SMTP + TLS as well as IMAPS) as a
result of their P2P fight. Needless to say
none of these changes corrected my problem.
Stanislav Kruchinin wrote:
Johan Huysmans wrote:
Here is my tc config, maybe something is wrong with that config:
/sbin/tc qdisc del dev bond1 root
/sbin/tc qdisc add dev bond1 root handle 1: htb default 1
/sbin/tc class add dev bond1 parent
Jaime Fordham wrote:
But ipp2p does compile with Kernel 2.6.22, only it produces these unaligned
access errors for the search_all_ed2k class.
Google say me that need a patch (that work here)
http://kambing.ui.edu/gentoo-portage/net-firewall/ipp2p/files/ipp2p-0.8.2-kernel-2.6.22.patch
Is there prior work or examples on setting up a router to perform
route optimization for customers (such as using traceroute, etc.)? I
recently came across a vendor that has implemented a Cisco appliance
that does this . . . it watches customer traffic and then sets about
trying to
I believe fighting is the wrong approach. Badly shaping the wrong
traffic is just as bad, if not worse IMO. An ISP in my neck of the
woods plays havoc with encrypted mail (SMTP + TLS as well as IMAPS) as a
result of their P2P fight. Needless to say we no longer use them, and
we encourage