Actually, I do have a question concerning fedora core 2, iptables-1.2.9 and above, and IMQ. The problem is as follows: I easily got IMQ compiled into the 2.6.6 kernel on FC2. I'm using iptables-1.2.9. I could not get iptables-1.2.9 to recompile. I kept getting errors about using glibc headers instead. I found a patch for iptables Makefile which fixed that. However, the shared library (libipt_IMQ.so) would never get created. Is something wrong with the kernel headers from the Fedora kernel-sourcecode rpm? I realize that this is not entirely related to the LARTC list. Regards, Walt Wyndroski ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andre Correa" <andre.correa@xxxxxxxxx> To: "Walt Wyndroski" <wdwrn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 2:07 PM Subject: Re: Simply IMQ > > Hi Walt, I'm the "Correa" from your list. In fact www.linuximq.net is a > project from a group of people, not just me, who are working on: > Devera->McHardy IMQ's code that was unmantained and now is alive again. > > We can tell you that there is a lot of people in our mailling list who > reports using IMQ in production, including myself, with great stability. > My server is up for more then 160 days with around 100 PPPoE users on it > all the time. I run it on other shapping servers as well. > > We've eing working on IMQ last months and now there are stable versions > for 2.4 and 2.6 kernels (up to 2.6.7), and one beta version being > tested. In your scenario you better get the stable versions: > > Patch for Linux-2.6.1 up to 2.6.7 - > http://www.linuximq.net/patchs/linux-2.6.2-imq-4.diff > > Patch for Linux-2.4.24 / 2.4.25 / 2.4.26 - > http://www.linuximq.net/patchs/linux-2.4.26-imq.diff > > Patch for iptables up to 1.2.11 - > http://www.linuximq.net/patchs/iptables-1.2.9-imq1.diff > > I don't know if someone used IMQ in a 27Mbps link but it is worth > trying. I would like to invite you to visit our site at www.linuximq.net > and join our low traffic mailling list. > > If you ever decide to give our beta patch a try, it has some corrections > and implementations as follows: > > - Correction of ipv6 support "+"s issue (Hasso Tepper) > - Correction of imq_init_devs() issue that resulted in > kernel OOPS unloading IMQ as module (Norbert Buchmuller) > - Addition of functionality to choose number of IMQ devices > during kernel config (Andre Correa) > - Addition of functionality to choose how IMQ hooks on > PRE and POSTROUTING (after or before NAT) (Andre Correa) > - Cosmetic corrections (Norbert Buchmuller) (Andre Correa) > > > Please let us know if we can help you somehow. > > Good Luck! > > Andre > > > > Walt Wyndroski wrote: > > I've followed this list for quite a long time and have even posted a couple > > of times. I used the early versions of IMQ from Devik (I think that was his > > name), and it worked well. I only ever got the chance to implement it in my > > test environment. I now need to implement it in my production environment. > > My Linux core router has nine interfaces and has a 27 megabit connection to > > the internet. It is quite busy much of the time. It runs Fedora Core 1 now > > but will most likely be upgraded to Fedora Core 2 in the next month or so. > > > > Now with all that said, here is my question. I see that maintenance of IMQ > > has been passed on a couple of times. I see some people say that IMQ is not > > stable and should not be put into a production environment. My use of IMQ a > > year ago invovled only egress qdiscs using HTB and SFQ because the egress > > qdiscs were much more powerful and better than the ingress qdisc. The only > > problem that I ever had with IMQ was using the iptables target with both > > PREROUTING and POSTROUTING. I see Roy has posted that IMQ essentially > > crashes when doing egress shaping. Is this correct? I've always understood > > egress as outbound shaping/filtering and ingress as inbound > > shaping/filtering. I say that because I saw in an earlier post by Roy that > > he changed his terminology to INPUT,OUTPUT, and FORWARD. Was he not using > > the terms egress and ingress correctly? I see that the current 'big' problem > > is touching locally generated traffic. What I need to know is which version > > of IMQ is most stable for kernel 2.6? Or even kernel2.4? Is it Devera's? > > McHardy's? Correa's? or Roy's? Or should I just leave it alone? My apologies > > if I got names wrong. > > > > This is probably a long email just to ask that question, but I can't seem to > > find an answer from the list archives. I downloaded the whole 46 mb archive > > and essentially read 90% of the posts related to IMQ. I'm just trying to get > > a good understanding of what's happening with/to IMQ. > > > > Thank you in advance for any advice. > > > > Walt Wyndroski > > > > _______________________________________________ > > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
