Hello Payal, Ur method is having problem. What happens is that u have defined that all ur default traffic can pass thru any of the network cards hence it is not a case in which if a link goes down some users will get net or will not get net. Therefeore in ur case if either link is down then also ur whole office will have access to net. I had a same configuration mith my computer. I will like to further ask that in this kind of system how do i start balancing traffic since its not taking place. I am new to advanced routing and the manual at this site has confused me a bit. So please if someone could suggest how to start it will be a gr8 pleasure. I have a server with two ethernet cards and it throws dhcp. I want to create different categories of users like some with 128kb access some with 64 and some with 32 ..... regards manish On Thursday 04 September 2003 10:14, lartc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Send LARTC mailing list submissions to > lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > lartc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > You can reach the person managing the list at > lartc-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of LARTC digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Problem while using HTB bandwidth limitation (Nimit Gupta) > 2. IMQ and 2.6 kernel (Remus) > 3. filtering on destination MAC address (r) > 4. (no subject) (Randolph Carter) > 5. routing query (Payal Rathod) > > --__--__-- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 10:29:49 +0530 > From: Nimit Gupta <nimit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Organization: Deeproot > To: Stef Coene <stef.coene@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Martin A. Brown" <mabrown-lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, > lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Problem while using HTB bandwidth limitation > > Stef Coene wrote: > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 07:39, Nimit Gupta wrote: > >>Hello, > >> > >>Thanks a lot Martin & Stef for clarifying my doubts. Your detailed > >>explaination was quiet helpful in making the things clear. > >> > >>I agree that if I give 24Kbit for each leaf class they will get it > >>without confirming about the total bandwidth available with the parent > >>but why does it allow him to reach upto 48Kbit even when ceiling is > >> 24Kbit? > > > > Is this his for a short term, like a burst? > > Yeah its for a short period but it keeps happening, I mean it will reach > to 48Kbit and then after few sec it will stablize at 24Kbit then again > it will reach to 48 and this repeats. > > can you explain how to calculate burst rates for better control and > accuracy? > > >>>In order for you to control > >>>latency and bandwidth use, you must ensure that you are the slowest > >>>point. Annoyingly, the only successful way to identify exactly what > >>> speed to use as a bandwidth cap is experimentation. A good general > >>> suggestion is to lop off a couple of kbit and try capping your > >>> bandwidth exactly as Stef suggests. Try using 188kbit, and see if your > >>> apparent control increases. > >> > >>Is there a ratio between the total available bandwidth and the amount > >>you restrict it to or you can just arbitarily reduce by 5-7 Kbit. > > > > It should be quite accurate. I tested it for different rates / ceils and > > each time the results where allmost perfect. > > So I want to know what ratio it is as you said for 192Kbit make 188Kbit > thats equivalent to 2 percent, is this the way. > > One more thing, Is there something like isolated(as in cbq) in htb, that > is irrespective of others demand the bandwidth allocated to someone as > isolated does not get affected. > > Is there an irc channel for lartc discussions? > > with regards, > Nimit > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 2 > From: "Remus" <rmocius@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: <lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 09:09:27 +0100 > Subject: IMQ and 2.6 kernel > > Hi folks, > > I would like to know if IMQ (http://trash.net/~kaber/imq/) is going to be > ported to the 2.6 kernel or there is something else? > > Thanks > > Remus > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 10:14:04 -0400 > From: r <raffi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: filtering on destination MAC address > > hi- > > i've been trying to setup an outgoing queue that prioritizes traffic > depending on whether it recognizes the MAC address the packet is > destined to -- and i've not been having any luck. i think my ebtables > rule is correct as the packet count when i do an --Lc is increasing in > an expected way, but when i look at the tc statistics, i don't think > the packets are going into the right queues. > > i'm trying to work with eth2 as the interface, so first i create a > bridge interface, br2, and attach eth2 to it. as i understand it, this > is necessary because otherwise ebtables is not going to function on > that interface. > > brctl addbr br2 > brctl stp br2 off > brctl addif br2 eth2 > ifconfig br2 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast > 192.168.1.255 > ifconfig eth2 0.0.0.0 > route add -net 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 br2 > > once i have that, i apply the following > > tc qdisc add dev br2 root handle 3: htb default 11 > tc class add dev br2 parent 3: classid 3:1 htb rate 10mbit > tc class add dev br2 parent 3:1 classid 3:10 htb rate 9990kbit ceil > 10mbit > tc class add dev br2 parent 3:1 classid 3:11 htb rate 10kbit ceil > 25kbit > tc qdisc add dev br2 parent 3:10 handle 30: sfq > tc qdisc add dev br2 parent 3:11 handle 31: sfq > tc filter add dev br2 protocol ip parent 3: handle 5 fw classid 3:10 > ebtables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth2 -p IPV4 -d 00:30:65:17:71:8f > -j mark --set-mark 5 > > please note that the ebtables is being applied to eth2. > > when i set this up, all traffic destined for 00:30:65:17:71:8f, i > think, is being marked as the --Lc count is increasing. however, when > i do a > > tc -s qdisc show dev br2 > > it looks like all the packets are going into queue 11, which is the > 10kbit class. > > if somebody could shed some light on this problem, i would greatly > appreciate it. > > r > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 21:20:24 -0500 (COT) > From: Randolph Carter <angelripper@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: Damjan <gdamjan@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Lartc List <lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: (no subject) > > Seem you want to achieve somekind of concave service curve but with > terrible times, maybe you could try to do it some way the HFSC queuer > does but definitly not in a script or using HTB, HTB uses a linear service > curve as a Token Bucket actually does, you should try using the linux port > of the HFSC made by Alex Goldney you can find further info here > > http://members.optushome.com.au/agoldney/ > > HFSC is intented for delay bounding, but I think you could do some strange > arragments to achieve what u say. Tell me if u get it. > > You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on. > -- Dean Martin > last night. > > --__--__-- > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 08:03:46 +0530 > From: Payal Rathod <payal-lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: routing query > > Hi, > I have a simple question. I asked a friend about it but he was also not > clear. So, I thought of mailing the list. > > I have a linux box (RH 7.2) which will have 2 net cards. I have 2 types > of connections to that box. One RF at eth0 and 1 ISDN at eth1. > Now I told 10 people from the company to give eth1 as their default > gateway and the rest as eth0. Ok, so far? Now my understanding that with > the routing table below, all traffic coming to eth0 will be routed thru' > RF router and all traffic coming to eth1 will be routed through ISDN > router. Am I right? S, if ISDN fails only 10 people will suffer but the > rest can continue using RF line. Same case with RF line, if it fails the > 10 people can use ISDN without any glitch. This is no load balancing > network. Just a simple routing decision. > > I have, > route add default gw <ISDN router ip> dev eth1 > route add default gw <RF router ip> dev eth0 > > > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use > Iface 127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 > 0 lo 125.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 > 0 eth1 125.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 > 0 eth1 default 203.124.123.111 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 > 0 eth0 default 125.125.125.3 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 > 0 eth1 default * 0.0.0.0 U 0 0 > 0 eth0 > > Can anyone comment whether I am right in my analysis? > > My friend's comments are given below, > > | I still say that should be necessary. I believe you need to echo 0 > | at some files found by /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/send_redirects. > | Otherwise devices won't route through your box, they'll be > | redirected straight to one of the routers (at random, as far as I > | know). > > With warm regards, > -Payal -- Regards, Manish Singh Software Engineer Consilnet India Pvt Ltd Ph: 011 26868293/94/95 _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
