Nothing wrong ;) It is matter of personal taste. Simply policing flow doesn't differentiate between subflows (like SFQ does) which leads to unfair sharing per subflow. But yes it is option and is in vanilla kernel. devik On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Ross Skaliotis wrote: > What's wrong with using ingress on the ppp0 (adsl) device? Instead of > queuing packets leaving eth0 and eth1 to a combined 512, just attach > something like the following to ppp0 (remembering to make the rate a bit > under 512, experiment to find the best value): > > tc qdisc del dev ppp0 ingress > tc qdisc add dev ppp0 handle ffff: ingress > tc filter add dev ppp0 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 10 u32 match ip src \ > 0.0.0.0/0 police rate 500kbit buffer 5k drop flowid :1 > > -Ross Skaliotis > > On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Martin Devera wrote: > > > > I've just realised something though.... How do I allow the total download > > > bandwidth hitting eth0+eth1 from the net connection (ppp0) to be limited at > > > 512, but "pooled" it I don't want to divide 256/256 per ethernet segment. > > > All these restrictions are device specific? > > > > Unfortunately yes. If you want to limit sum of two-interface output > > then you can use my IMQ patch. Vanilla kernel can't do it. > > > > devik > > luxik.cdi.cz/~devik/qos/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl > > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/lartc/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/lartc/ > >
