[LARTC] tc offset subheader matching clarification / question

Hello TC's syntax, particulary u32 filter, is far more rich than what man, howto or command's help provides. I've been looking for information about the uses of 'offset' parameter, or more detailed explanation of a few other/relevan options, but what I've found is very brief to say the

Re: [LARTC] tc offset subheader matching clarification / question

Russell Stuart wrote: Look here: http://www.stuart.id.au/russell/files/tc/doc/tc/cls_u32.txt Awesome documentation. Thanks. One tiny detail after inital reading - shift 6 divides by 64, not 32. ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl

[LARTC] vlan interfaces and tc

Hello I have few questions regarding tc functionality (qdiscs, classes, etc.) when vlans are in use. For example, consider interface eth0, for which I create and extra vlan with vconfig, let's say eth0.11. Then using tc I can add usual things - qdiscs, filters, ... - to both eth0 and eth0.11.

Re: [LARTC] Re: vlan interfaces and tc

Christian Benvenuti wrote: Hi, [cut] Yes they are both allowed. This means, for example, that the traffic that originates from or that is addressed to a VLAN interface can potentially go through two independent QoS configurations. Depending on what you want to achieve, you may configure

Re: [LARTC] Re: vlan interfaces and tc

Christian Benvenuti wrote: This is one important detail you probably missed: (Note that in this case the VLAN interface is a L3 interface) If you assign an IP address to the VLAN interface and you transmit IP traffic on that interface, than the traffic goes through the VLAN qdisc config and

Re: [LARTC] Re: vlan interfaces and tc [solved]

Christian Benvenuti wrote: Is there an interface configured on the same VLAN on the other side of the link? If there is not, ARP fails (no one replies to the requests) and you [cut] Bloody hell. I knew I missed something embarassing. Faked mac solved the issue. Thanks for help !

[LARTC] tc u32's indev paramater

After checking f_u32.c sources, there's one extra parameter parsed - indev, that is nowhere described - not even in commandline help or in excellent Russell's documentation. Does anyone know, what's the purpose of it ? ___ LARTC mailing list

[LARTC] prio bands and ignored priomap when any tc filter is present

Today I've noticed a bit strange (?) behaviour when prio qdisc is used. Example (having no filters/qdisc/etc. at the start) : Add simple 9 bands qdisc, set each mapping to lowest priority band: tc qdisc add dev $eth root handle 1: prio bands 9 priomap 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 If I do

Re: [LARTC] prio bands and ignored priomap when any tc filter is present

Javier Ors wrote: I'm not sure but I think that you have to choose either to use the priomap, or to use only the filters. I have also notice this problem, if you set a filter for only one kind of traffic the rest of it ends in some random band. Ok, thanks for confirmation. Anyway, the

Re: [LARTC] tc filter syntax (and general noobness)

Vadtec wrote: ... protocol 6 match u32 0xff534d42 0x at nexthdr+23 flowid 2:50 ... Using nexthdr+ in as simple way as above won't work. U32 won't automatically adjust for the proper offset, you have to do it manually with another u32 filter, using link option. It's very well

Re: [LARTC] using tc to drop packets based on the diffserc or tos value

Raghuvendra Kumar wrote: Hi all, [...] [EMAIL PROTECTED] src]#tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip u32 match ip dsfield 8 police drop its showing error Illegal match. Can any one of you guide me , what is the correct way of doing it. Its imporatnt, Please post reply ASAP. For instance:

Re: [LARTC] I'm having an issue with u32 masking

Vadtec wrote: Is this how tc is supposed to work? Does it only match on the value it is given based on whether or not the mask matches? IE: u16 0x1a00 0x1a0f at 22 (dest port 6656 ONLY), u16 0x1a0b 0x1a0f at 22 (dest port 6667 ONLY) If so, how can you match a range of ports (in my example, or

Re: [LARTC] using tc to drop packets based on the diffserc or tos value

Hi Michal, Can i user filter on the default qdisc attached on the eth0.If then how? (although i read somewhere that there is very little customization that we can do the default qdisc)? Yes, default qdisc - pfifo_fast - is pretty limited, with 3 bands assigned to specific tos values'

Re: [LARTC] How to delete DSCP setting using iptable command.

Raghuvendra Kumar wrote: Hi, Can anybody tell me how to delete DSCP or TOS setting using iptable command. iptables --line-numbers -t mangle -vL OUTPUT to verify rule numbers, then just delete whatever you need with -D, i.e. iptables -t mangle -D OUTPUT 12

Re: [LARTC] tc filter question

Daniel wrote: My question is : 1. What is fh 800: and fh 800::800 mean ? 2. How I change the value 800 in fh 800::800 ? I'm guessing this is default value and I need to change that because my filter rule can be more than 0xfff line. Also check

Re: [LARTC] HFSC and that ATM overhead problem (Another VOIP QoS post. Ahhhh)

Giovanni Bajo wrote: On dom, 2007-11-04 at 23:04 +1100, Fog_Watch wrote: HFSC appears to be the queueing discipline of choice for VOIP. Is it? Any pointers? Well, it can decouple bandwidth and delay. And both are important here. Some documentation pointers: