On Friday 14 May 2004 16:57, Andreas Klauer wrote: <snip> > > rebecca:~# cat /etc/l7-protocols/edonkey.pat > > ... > > ^[\xe3\xc5\xe5\xd4].?.?.?.? \ > > ([\x01\x02\x05\x14\x15\x16\x18\x19\x1a\x1b\x1c\x20\x21\x32\x33\x34 \ > > \x35\x46\x38\x40\x41\x42\x43\x46\x47\x48\x49\x4a\x4b\x4c\x4d\x4e\x4f \ > > \x50\x51\x52\x53\x54\x55\x56\x57\x58\x5b\x5c\x60\x81\x82\x90\x91\x93 \ > > \x96\x97\x98\x99\x9a\x9b\x9c\x9e\xa0\xa1\xa2\xa3\xa4]| \ > > \x59................?[ -~]|\x96....$) > > ... > > #ipp2p essentially uses "\xe3....\x47", which doesn't seem at all right > > to me. ... > > It seems that you have done quite a research here. > You should definitely tell the IPP2P author about this. Research, yeah. But I didn't write the above filter. :) I just found it works a lot better than the one IPP2P is presently using. > Anyway - even if I weren't using IPP2P, P2P traffic wouldn't really matter > since I put all traffic into user classes. So the only person who's > suffering would be the P2P user. And I don't really care about that. ;-) Interesting. How did you accomplish that? I'm used to using HTB where you apportion fixed amounts of bandwidth per class. Does each user have a fixed rate? Sounds like a cool configuration. > I'm not specially limiting P2P traffic either. I just put it into a fourth > prio band of a prio qdisc, which works okay. Probably I should try > creating two HTB classes per user instead. But this would mean having 3 > HTB classes per user (one user class, one default child, one p2p child) > which is a bit much. So right now each user is getting a prio disc? > Andreas _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
