Re: tc and IPv6 : any experiences ?

Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic Control

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Dave Taht wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Alan Goodman
<notifications@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
'Just works' for me.

TF + HFSC + FQ_Codel.  QoS categoriser written in iptables rules which mark
the traffic was 'cloned' across using ip6tables. Slight adjustments needed.

I pointed to a common mistake folk tend to make when dealing with
ipv6, in writing a filter rule, or a default bin, here:

https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Wondershaper_Must_Die/

When I started that rant I was seeing in nearly every off the shelf
shaper a tc pattern match that looked like this:

tc filter add dev $DEV parent ffff: protocol ip prio 50 u32 match ip src \
    0.0.0.0/0 police rate ${DOWNLINK}kbit burst 10k drop flowid :1

Instead of

tc filter add dev ${DEV} parent ffff: protocol all match u32 0 0 \
police rate ${DOWNLINK}kbit burst 100k drop flowid :1


Not matching protocol "all", thus ipv4 only - and thus the instant you
added ipv6 to a network, the shaper (or policer in this case),  failed
to shape successfully any traffic. Additional problems listed in the
link above. I went on a search-and-destroy mission on every shaper I
could find that was public to fix it a few years ago, but there's so
much copy/pasted tc code out there...

I was about to post that ip is just v4, but would also add - be careful
with protocol all as well. You may end up shaping/dropping "critical"
packets like arp.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lartc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [LARTC Home Page]     [Netfilter]     [Netfilter Development]     [Network Development]     [Bugtraq]     [GCC Help]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Fedora Users]
  Powered by Linux