Good questions Damion,
: I've noticed as of late, everyone saying 'you can't shape incoming
: traffic' but the best solution is to use the imq device.
Well....(you'll love this) the reason everyone is saying "you can't shape
incoming traffic" is because you can't shape incoming traffic (without
IMQ).
Well, in short, what we're really saying is that you can't control what
you receive (without IMQ). As the recipient of frames/packets, you have
no control over how fast they arrive in your device's input queue.
: what happened to ingress /policer usage? is this not recommended
: anymore?
There's nothing at all wrong with using an ingress policer. I don't
believe it's possible to attach any classes to the ingress qdisc*. That
is, the ingress qdisc only exists to allow the user to police inbound
traffic.
So, using the ingress qdisc as a dummy qdisc against which to attach a
policing filter (which drops traffic over a given rate) is the only use of
the ingress qdisc.
: I know it doesn't do as efficient job as the normal egress
: methods, but is imq a lot better ?
IMQ allows the full expressiveness of the entire set of linux
traffic control tools (from egress filtering) to be applied to
- ingress traffic redirected through the IMQ device and
- traffic split across any number of interfaces regardless of
flow direction
: when does imq become necessary instead of cbq/htb and ingress?
IMQ becomes necessary when
- needing to shape or prioritize traffic on multiple interfaces as a
single unit
- desiring to shape or prioritize ingress traffic beyond policing a rate
- needing to shape or prioritize traffic regardless of flow direction
-Martin
* Maybe somebody will step in and contradict me here?
--
Martin A. Brown --- SecurePipe, Inc. --- mabrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
