From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Furniss Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 13:57:25 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] Weighted packet shaping? Message-Id: <41DAA0C5.5000701@dsl.pipex.com> List-Id: References: <20041221034303.GB27656@linux.comp> In-Reply-To: <20041221034303.GB27656@linux.comp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org 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@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/