From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "S Mohan" Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 03:37:24 +0000 Subject: RE: [LARTC] should I shape tun[N] or eth0 ? Message-Id: <20040805032857.CB99744DB@outpost.ds9a.nl> List-Id: References: <200408041735.07132.etienne@unix.za.org> In-Reply-To: <200408041735.07132.etienne@unix.za.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org AFAIK, tc will work on real and not virtual interfaces. Warm regards Mohan > -----Original Message----- > From: lartc-admin@mailman.ds9a.nl > [mailto:lartc-admin@mailman.ds9a.nl] On Behalf Of Etienne Ledoux > Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 9:05 PM > To: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl > Subject: [LARTC] should I shape tun[N] or eth0 ? > > Greetings, > > me again. I'm starting to feel miff now. > > If I have a few vpn tunnels with different tun interfaces. > And all this tunnel traffic is coming in on my eth0 > interface, it also leave via eth0 again. I would like to > share the available bandwidth evenly with tunnel clients. > Would applying the bandwidth rule on eth0 with htb & sfq work > for sharing the bandwidth or will bandwidth rules only affect > tunnel traffic if I apply it to the actual tun[n] intefaces ? > > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ > _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/