From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Furniss Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:25:12 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] [PATCH] mark in u32 Message-Id: <41DC06D8.70301@dsl.pipex.com> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org Thomas Graf wrote: >>That looks handy :-) Do you know why fw mark doesn't work with policers >>in 2.6 (assuming it's not just me) > > > Be prepared to see it removed again in favour of the meta extended > match. Don't rely too much on it. I searched a bit around meta data recently but couldn't find much - do you have any links? > > Regarding fw, what exactly is not working? fw doesn't handle police > results properly, the patchset at http://people.suug.ch/~tgr/patches/pending/ > fixes this. Given its another issue, I would be curious to know what > exactly is not working. It was for a test I did, though I notice some of the diffserv examples use it aswell (albeit with ipchains). http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=lartc&m0122532022827&w=2 > > >>ISTR having to mess about a bit last time when applying esfq patch to >>get it to work. > > > Would you guys like to see esfq included in mainline? > Yea - that would be great :-) Andy. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/