Hi uergen, In the iproute2 distro there is a file named "Config" with the following options in it: TC_CONFIG_DIFFSERV=n TC_CONFIG_ATM=n Set the TC_CONFIG_DIFFSERV to y then compile tc again. Should work then. Cheers, Rodrigo On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 02:43:41PM +0800, Juergen wrote: > Sorry, I want to do your test but something wrong!!!!!! > tc qdisc add dev eth1 handle 1:0 root dsmark indices 64 set_tc_index > > > [root@xxxxxxxx linux-2.4]# tc qdisc add dev eth1 handle 1:0 root dsmark > indices 64 set_tc_index > Unknown qdisc "dsmark", hence option "indices" is unparsable > > My kernel is 2.4.2 and iproute is 2.2.4-10 > I have checked my kernel, and it support field marker. > <M> Diffserv field marker > > Please give me some advice... > thx... > > > # --- General setup --- > > tc qdisc add dev eth1 handle 1:0 root dsmark indices 64 set_tc_index > > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 1 tcindex mask 0xfc > shift > > 2 pass_on > > tc qdisc add dev eth1 parent 1:0 handle 2:0 cbq bandwidth 10Mbit cell 8 > > avpkt 1000 mpu 64 > > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 2:0 protocol ip prio 1 tcindex mask 0xf0 > shift > > 4 pass_on > > > > # --- AF Class 1 specific setup--- > > tc class add dev eth1 parent 2:0 classid 2:1 cbq bandwidth 10Mbit rate > 2Mbit > > avpkt 1000 prio 1 bounded allot 1514 weight 1 maxburst 21 > > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 2:0 protocol ip prio 1 handle 1 tcindex > > classid 2:1 > > tc qdisc add dev eth1 parent 2:1 gred setup DPs 3 default 2 > > > > # --- AF Class 1 DP 1--- > > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 1 handle 10 tcindex > > classid 1:111 > > tc qdisc change dev eth1 parent 2:1 gred limit 60KB min 15KB max 45KB > burst > > 20 avpkt 1000 bandwidth 10Mbit DP 1 \ > > probability 0.02 prio 2 > > > > # --- AF Class 1 DP 2--- > > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 1 handle 12 tcindex > > classid 1:112 > > tc qdisc change dev eth1 parent 2:1 gred limit 60KB min 15KB max 45KB > burst > > 20 avpkt 1000 bandwidth 10Mbit DP 2 \ > > probability 0.04 prio 3 > > > > # --- AF Class 1 DP 3--- > > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 1 handle 14 tcindex > > classid 1:113 > > tc qdisc change dev eth1 parent 2:1 gred limit 60KB min 15KB max 45KB > burst > > 20 avpkt 1000 bandwidth 10Mbit DP 3 \ > > probability 0.06 prio 4 > > > > #------BE Queue setup------ > > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 2 handle 0 tcindex mask > 0 > > classid 1:1 > > tc class add dev eth1 parent 2:0 classid 2:5 cbq bandwidth 100Mbit rate > > 2Mbit avpkt 1000 prio 8 bounded allot 1514 weight 1 maxburst 21 > > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 2:0 protocol ip prio 1 handle 0 tcindex > > classid 2:5 > > tc qdisc add dev eth1 parent 2:5 red limit 60KB min 15KB max 45KB burst 20 > > avpkt 1000 bandwidth 10Mbit probability 0.4 > > > > ########################## > > Here are part of what i get when i "tc -s qdisc": > > qdisc red 8005: dev eth1 limit 60Kb min 15Kb max 45Kb > > Sent 0 bytes 0 pkts (dropped 0, overlimits 0) > > marked 0 early 0qdisc gred 8001: dev eth1 > > DP:1 (prio 8) Average Queue 0b Measured Queue 0b > > Packet drops: 0 (forced 0 early 0) > > Packet totals: 0 (bytes 0) ewma 3 Plog 21 Scell_log 9 > > DP:2 (prio 8) Average Queue 0b Measured Queue 0b > > Packet drops: 0 (forced 0 early 0) > > Packet totals: 0 (bytes 0) ewma 3 Plog 20 Scell_log 9 > > DP:3 (prio 8) Average Queue 0b Measured Queue 0b > > Packet drops: 0 (forced 0 early 0) > > Packet totals: 0 (bytes 0) ewma 3 Plog 19 Scell_log 9 > > Sent 0 bytes 0 pkts (dropped 0, overlimits 0) > > > > qdisc cbq 2: dev eth1 rate 10Mbit (bounded,isolated) prio no-transmit > > Sent 0 bytes 0 pkts (dropped 0, overlimits 0) > > borrowed 0 overactions 0 avgidle 624 undertime 0 > > > > qdisc dsmark 1: dev eth1 indices 0x0040 set_tc_index > > Sent 0 bytes 0 pkts (dropped 0, overlimits 0) > > pdrop 0 other 0 > > > > ##################### > > > > my question is why is the prio shown is always 8, although i set them to > > prio 2,3,4 respectively? And i suspect because of this, i actually get > > better performance for BE (in terms of lower delay). > > > > Also, i would like to clarify some requirement for af as proosed in RFC. > In > > "Appendix: Example services" of RFC 2597, it said that AF1x should have > > "greater probability for timely forwarding by having lighter load". > > Therefore, i send lighter traffic to class 1, than class 2 and 3. But > still > > i get lower delay for class BE, and no observable difference in delay for > > class 1, 2 and 3 (maybe it is the prio 8 problem as described above). > > > > What do you guys think about the delay for AF as proposed in RFC? Should > AF > > class 1 has the smallest delay compared to class 2,3 4 and BE? > > > > Last question, what do we do with excess AF traffic? Do we drop it or > > downgrade it to BE? > > > > If you have read to this part, i must thank you for your patience. > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: > http://ds9a.nl/2.4Routing/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/2.4Routing/
