marco ghidinelli wrote:
ok, maybe i'm wrong, but i try to run the same script, and i think that the script have problem setting prio 0 on filters:
running:
$TC filter add dev $IFNAME parent 1:0 prio 0 protocol ip handle 22 fw flowid 1:20 $TC filter add dev $IFNAME parent 1:0 prio 2 protocol ip handle 21 fw flowid 1:21
gave me:
# tc filter list dev eth0
filter parent 1: protocol ip pref 2 fw filter parent 1: protocol ip pref 2 fw handle 0x15 classid 1:21 filter parent 1: protocol ip pref 49152 fw filter parent 1: protocol ip pref 49152 fw handle 0x16 classid 1:20
----------------------------------^^^^^
don't blame me if this is obvious/wrong/stupid. :)
Well spotted - you are right, I see the same, so it looks like 0 is not the highest prio when used on filters - I shall use 1 in future.
As for affecting this test - I don't think it will make any difference in this case because it just affects the order that the matches get tested against the packets. With only 3 tests and low packets/sec it should makes no difference.
It's still usefull to know for other setups, though - thanks.
Andy.
2.6.10, with lastest iproute2
_______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
