]
Subject: RE: [leaf-devel] FW: TC control & bandwith management using
LEAF
On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 06:58, Tom Eastep wrote:
> --On Thursday, February 27, 2003 08:08:36 PM +0530 S Mohan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yes I did try directions also. No luck. Jaime (LinCE
Le Jeudi 27 Février 2003 20:38, Richard Doyle a écrit :
> On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 06:58, Tom Eastep wrote:
> > --On Thursday, February 27, 2003 08:08:36 PM +0530 S Mohan
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Yes I did try directions also. No luck. Jaime (LinCE) also seems to
> > > have checked thi
On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 06:58, Tom Eastep wrote:
> --On Thursday, February 27, 2003 08:08:36 PM +0530 S Mohan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yes I did try directions also. No luck. Jaime (LinCE) also seems to have
> > checked this out and had the same result.
> >
>
> So in other words, iptable
ry 27, 2003 8:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [leaf-devel] FW: TC control & bandwith management using
LEAF
--On Thursday, February 27, 2003 08:08:36 PM +0530 S Mohan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes I did try directions also. No luck. Jaime (LinCE) als
--On Thursday, February 27, 2003 08:08:36 PM +0530 S Mohan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes I did try directions also. No luck. Jaime (LinCE) also seems to have
checked this out and had the same result.
So in other words, iptables support for a bridge is pretty weak, even with
the relevant patch
: [leaf-devel] FW: TC control & bandwith management using
LEAF
--On Thursday, February 27, 2003 10:43:35 AM +0530 S Mohan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'd like comments/ feedback on whether what I've tried is Ok or do I
> need to try something else.
>
So it
--On Thursday, February 27, 2003 10:43:35 AM +0530 S Mohan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd like comments/ feedback on whether what I've tried is Ok or do I need
to try something else.
So it sounds like the INPUT and OUTPUT rules don't hurt anything at least.
Did you try making the rule uni-dire
Hi Mohan and others,
> Can I have comments on this doc please? I could have written qos-htb but
> would have duplicated Juan Prieto's effort. Ideally this should be
> followed by the qos-htb doc. Excuse blunders if any. Would be happy to
> learn where I've gone wrong or made mistakes.
Sorry f
point.
I'd like comments/ feedback on whether what I've tried is Ok or do I need to
try something else.
Mohan
-Original Message-
From: Tom Eastep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 27 February 2003 10:26
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [leaf-devel] FW: TC contr
--On Thursday, February 27, 2003 08:12:45 AM +0530 S Mohan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can I have comments on this doc please? I could have written qos-htb but
would have duplicated Juan Prieto's effort. Ideally this should be
followed by the qos-htb doc. Excuse blunders if any. Would be happy t
Can I have comments on this doc please? I could have written qos-htb but
would have duplicated Juan Prieto's effort. Ideally this should be
followed by the qos-htb doc. Excuse blunders if any. Would be happy to
learn where I've gone wrong or made mistakes.
Would like Tom or Jacques to comment on h
11 matches
Mail list logo
