On Sunday 20 April 2003 09:27, openings wrote:
> dear, folks.
>
> I want to following policy.
>
> ================= policy which i want (eth0)===============
>
> eth0
> HTB(1:0)
>
> 1:1
> / \
> / \
> / \
> 1:10 1:11
> host 1(dst) host 2(dst)
> / | \ / | \
> / | \ / | \
> / | \ / | \
> / | \ / |
> \ 1:21 1:22 1:23 1:31 1:32 1:33 port80
> port22 etc. port80 port22 etc.
>
> ===================================================
>
> i use following filter setting (pseudo setting).
>
> is this right?
>
> # for traffic to host1
> filter add dev eth0 , prio 0 , match ip dst [host1 IP],match ip dport 80,
> flowid 1:21 filter add dev eth0 , prio 1 , match ip dst [host1 IP],match ip
> dport 22, flowid 1:22 filter add dev eth0 , prio 2 , match ip dst [host1
> IP],flowid 1:23
>
> #for traffic to host2
> filter add dev eth0 , prio 0 , match ip dst [host2 IP],match ip dport 80,
> flowid 1:31 filter add dev eth0 , prio 1 , match ip dst [host2 IP],match ip
> dport 22, flowid 1:32 filter add dev eth0 , prio 2 , match ip dst [host2
> IP],flowid 1:33
>
> ======================================================
>
> all etc traffic which destined to host1 must classify to class 1:23.
> my filter's priority setting is right?
The different prio's in the filters are not needed. You only need them to
determine the order of the filters. In your case, order doesn't mather for
the prio0 and the prio1 filters.
I'm not sure myself, but the lower the prio, the higher the priority. So in
your filter setup, your catch-all filter should have the lowest prio.
Stef
--
stef.coene@xxxxxxxxx
"Using Linux as bandwidth manager"
http://www.docum.org/
#lartc @ irc.oftc.net
