Charles, : #include "fields.tc" : #include "ports.tc" [ You don't really need to explicitly include fields.tc and ports.tc, because they are implicitly included by tcc. ] [ some snipped stuff ] : ah ha -- thanks for this!!!! much clearer now ... Most certainly. I think this is one of the more confusing aspects of Linux traffic control. : perhaps this table is worthy of inclusion in the howto or a : compatibility option in tcng? It's (now*) written in several places [0], [1], [2]*. Which HOWTO were you consulting? The LARTC HOWTO? It doesn't (yet) cover tcng, to my knowledge. : curious also on your experience with ingress -- i noticed that using a : Single Leaky Bucket, and playing with the cbs parameter can : dramatically (obviously) affect the ingress policing. is there a : general rule of thumb in calculating the cbs size based on the cir? I don't have a quick and easy answer....perhaps one of Stef's graphs [3] will help you choose a bucket size. Because a larger bucket supports burstier traffic, it may be your choice in many situations. Others may want to prevent any bursting, and may deliberately wish to use a small bucket. This is also where some experimentation will lend a hand. Better to try a few bucket sizes, and see where you/your users are comfortable. -Martin [0] http://linux-ip.net/gl/tcng/node21.html [1] http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Traffic-Control-tcng-HTB-HOWTO/misc.html *[2] http://www.docum.org/stef.coene/qos/faq/cache/74.html [3] http://docum.org/ * added (at your suggestion) to the LARTC FAQ-o-Matic -- Martin A. Brown --- SecurePipe, Inc. --- mabrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
